HS2 - phase2 route announcement?

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm strongly supportive of HS2 and I've taken a particular interest in this aspect of the contentious debate about High Speed Rail. I believe that I live in relatively close proximity to the pathway phase 2 will follow. For what it's worth, I've compiled my best guestimate of the route, based on what little information has been available for the last two years.

Very interesting.
So you think east of Stoke with tunnels under Brown Edge and Mow Cop eh?
Won't suit the "western" interests (Liverpool, Chester etc).
Residents of Endon, Astbury/West Heath (Congleton) and Chelford look away now...
It will have to undulate significantly in the North Staffs hills.
I would have expected more short tunnels/embankments through there.
Not a bad stab though.

 

[Morgsie]

I am in favour in HS2 going to Scotland by extending the Manchester part to Glasgow and the Leeds part to Edinburgh via Newcastle.

There is talk about a stop in North Staffordshire/Stoke On Trent.

 

[HSTEd]

I am in favour in HS2 going to Scotland by extending the Manchester part to Glasgow and the Leeds part to Edinburgh via Newcastle.

There is talk about a stop in North Staffordshire/Stoke On Trent.

You could never justify two HS lines to Scotland, you have a great deal of difficulty justifying one without going via Newcastle.

 

[swt_passenger]

Back to the original question, McNaughton gave a lecture last week in which he suggested that the plans for the northern sections would probably be 'available for public srutiny' in the autumn this year.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/03/16-hs2-engineer-sets-out-new.html

 

[Stats]

If I was a betting man, I'd put money on them being released shortly before Parliament rises for the summer.

 

[AlanFry1]

Will there be stations at Stoke, the East Midlands and Sheffield on HS2 Phase 2 and would it be a good idea that for Phase 3 of HS2 (to Scotland) will the Manchester Branch be extended to Glasgow and the Leeds branch be extended to Edinburgh via Newcastle?

 

[Holly]

... http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/03/16-hs2-engineer-sets-out-new.html

Odd reference in that report to "Colne Valley". According to wiki :roll: there are
River Colne, Essex; River Colne, Hertfordshire and River Colne, West Yorkshire.
None of which are anywhere near any reasonable possible route for HS2 phase 2.

The journalist must have misheard.

 

[swt_passenger]

... would it be a good idea that for Phase 3 of HS2 (to Scotland) will the Manchester Branch be extended to Glasgow and the Leeds branch be extended to Edinburgh via Newcastle?

Much of this thread is already babout the hypothesis that there will never be extensions of both routes. Did you not read it from the start?

 

[AlanFry1]

Much of this thread is already babout the hypothesis that there will never be extensions of both routes. Did you not read it from the start?

Yes I did, but the message from government about HS2 to Scotland is unclear, I am just stating how it could be done

 

[Stats]

To extend the line to Scotland would be expensive as there would be a lot of tunnelling involved to get under the hilly terrain and/or AONB (whichever route you took). Since they're not even considering spending the £3.5bn it would take to extend the Leeds line to Newcastle (which is peanuts in the overall cost of the scheme and the benefits it would bring to the North East) I think we can forget about Scotland.

 

[nick.c]

Speaking to HS2 staff at the road shows last year, I got the impression that the branch to Manchester presented more challenges than the eastern one to Leeds. This was chiefly because of Stoke-on-Trent. Skirting round Stoke to the east is certainly the most direct route, but the terrain is more difficult. I'd be impressed if they managed to identify a viable alignment here.

 

[LE Greys]

Speaking to HS2 staff at the road shows last year, I got the impression that the branch to Manchester presented more challenges than the eastern one to Leeds. This was chiefly because of Stoke-on-Trent. Skirting round Stoke to the east is certainly the most direct route, but the terrain is more difficult. I'd be impressed if they managed to identify a viable alignment here.

Straight through the middle of the station with access to the platforms would be nice, but unlikely. It would still make a good place to have a connection to the existing line, though, even if only ever used for permanent way trains.

 

[nerd]

I am not sure whether you have all seen this:

Legally, rail links between England and Scotland remain the responsibility of Westmintser - but the cost of any works within Scotland comes from the Scots transport budget.

However, it now appears that Justine Greening is happy for HS2 and the Scots transport minister to conduct their own face-to-face discussions as to options for a route north of the Border. Obviously, the outcome of these discussions would create implications for HS2 Phase 3 - i.e. whether to go north from Preston on the WCML or from Leeds/Newcastle on the ECML.

The Scots had already announced that they intended to conduct their own appraisal of options, with both Eastern and Western alignments possible. However, I suspect that the Western alignment is much the more likely; firstly because it is shorter and cheaper, secondly becuase it is clear that HS2 ltd prefer it, and thirdly because it would be faster and more direct.

So far as I am aware, the only alignment that appears to be already ruled out would be that following the ECML via Berwick, as the route along the Scots coast would be too twisty, and too indirect.

One possibility that is raised would be that the Scots and English lines could be built simultanieously, so that when English Phase 1 or two is opened to Brum/Manc, Scots Phase 1 might be opened from Glasgow to Carlisle. Phase 3 couild then either build from Preston to Carlisle, or along the line of the A66 across the the ECML.

Ministers agree on HS2 rail extension
Published on 2 March 2012

Damien Henderson

THE Scottish and UK governments are to work together to extend a high speed rail network north of the Border following a "constructive" meeting of ministers in Edinburgh.

An agreement announced last night will see Transport Scotland work with the Department for Transport's delivery company, High Speed 2, to look at route options and ways of financing the multibillion-pound infrastructure project.

It will see a final timescale for delivery agreed by the end of the current term of the Scottish Parliament.

The meeting, attended by UK Transport Secretary Justine Greening, Scottish Infrastructure Secretary Alex Neil, Transport Minister Keith Brown and Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, follows concern that Scotland was being left behind in the UK's high speed revolution.

The UK Government approved a controversial route in January which will carry trains at 250mph between London and Birmingham from 2024.

However, Scotland will derive only marginal journey time savings as trains will then have to travel on conventional track at slower speeds than the existing Pendolino trains in use on the West Coast Main Line.

Speaking afterwards, Mr Brown said it was not possible to give a date for when a route could be built in Scotland until more preparatory work was done.

But he said an agreement had now been reached to take a "collaborative" approach, adding: "It was a very positive and constructive meeting in which we agreed to start working with HS2 and engage with them to look at routes and financing issues."

 

[HSTEd]

I am not sure whether you have all seen this:

Legally, rail links between England and Scotland remain the responsibility of Westmintser - but the cost of any works within Scotland comes from the Scots transport budget.

However, it now appears that Justine Greening is happy for HS2 and the Scots transport minister to conduct their own face-to-face discussions as to options for a route north of the Border. Obviously, the outcome of these discussions would create implications for HS2 Phase 3 - i.e. whether to go north from Preston on the WCML or from Leeds/Newcastle on the ECML.

The Scots had already announced that they intended to conduct their own appraisal of options, with both Eastern and Western alignments possible. However, I suspect that the Western alignment is much the more likely; firstly because it is shorter and cheaper, secondly becuase it is clear that HS2 ltd prefer it, and thirdly because it would be faster and more direct.

So far as I am aware, the only alignment that appears to be already ruled out would be that following the ECML via Berwick, as the route along the Scots coast would be too twisty, and too indirect.

One possibility that is raised would be that the Scots and English lines could be built simultanieously, so that when English Phase 1 or two is opened to Brum/Manc, Scots Phase 1 might be opened from Glasgow to Carlisle. Phase 3 couild then either build from Preston to Carlisle, or along the line of the A66 across the the ECML.

1. The Western Alignment would not be cheaper, going from Manchester to Glasgow by the straightest possible alignment via Carlisle is ~305km, with a spur to serve Edinburgh being ~70km if you really want a reasonably direct route above all else.
That means 375km of track.

The Eastern alignment would go via Newcastle, I will include York and connecting to Glasgow via Edinburgh (with an inland alignment from Newcastle to Edinburgh), this comes out to a similar count of 370km or so of track

Additionally the terrain for a significant fraction of the Eastern alignment is nice flat effectively tableland with only a hundred miles of "difficult" terrain compared to 200+ for the western alignment (crossing the Lake District and the borders rather than just the latter).

2. While it is true that trains to Glasgow would be faster via Manchester than Leeds, the difference in track is only roughly 60km or so between the two routes.
This means that a train doing 320kph (as the train would simply cruise for longer at its top speed) would eat up the extra distance in eleven minutes. This is hardly significant on the end of a ~3hr journey.

3. There is insufficient traffic on the western alignment. If you look at a map of the UK's population density you can see that between Manchester and the Scottish Central belt is nothing, while the eastern alignment has Newcastle and its surrounds.

A Scottish HS2 link would never be viable on just traffic to points south of Manchester, two 400m trains per hour splitting at Carstairs or similar would easily saturate demand even if the air market was completely obliterated which is unlikely as many Anglo-Scottish flights are connections to international ones and as such to not suffer from security check delays.

You can boost demand significantly by shifting the Newcastle traffic, which is similar if not larger than the Scottish traffic due to the rail network already holding almost all of the modal share. Travel times under 2hrs to London are a possibility.

4. You would either have to abandon Newcastle to become even more of a backwater or you would have to build the line as far as Newcastle anyway, resulting in the Scottish link becoming a complete boondoggle.
HS2 Ltd. wants the western alignment so it can justify a Newcastle link later on, additionally it has unlimited money in said current climate (where politicians will spend ludicrous sums on "green" transport policies).
The Eastern alignment also gets you a fourth connection between Glasgow and Edinburgh that would make a shuttle service with 19 minute travel times feasible (based on existing Shinkansen timetables on a line with a 270kph top speed that requires tilting trains to exceed 250)

Why do I have to keep making this argument?

 

[LE Greys]

1. The Western Alignment would not be cheaper, going from Manchester to Glasgow by the straightest possible alignment via Carlisle is ~305km, with a spur to serve Edinburgh being ~70km if you really want a reasonably direct route above all else.
That means 375km of track.

The Eastern alignment would go via Newcastle, I will include York and connecting to Glasgow via Edinburgh (with an inland alignment from Newcastle to Edinburgh), this comes out to a similar count of 370km or so of track

Additionally the terrain for a significant fraction of the Eastern alignment is nice flat effectively tableland with only a hundred miles of "difficult" terrain compared to 200+ for the western alignment (crossing the Lake District and the borders rather than just the latter).

2. While it is true that trains to Glasgow would be faster via Manchester than Leeds, the difference in track is only roughly 60km or so between the two routes.
This means that a train doing 320kph (as the train would simply cruise for longer at its top speed) would eat up the extra distance in eleven minutes. This is hardly significant on the end of a ~3hr journey.

3. There is insufficient traffic on the western alignment. If you look at a map of the UK's population density you can see that between Manchester and the Scottish Central belt is nothing, while the eastern alignment has Newcastle and its surrounds.

A Scottish HS2 link would never be viable on just traffic to points south of Manchester, two 400m trains per hour splitting at Carstairs or similar would easily saturate demand even if the air market was completely obliterated which is unlikely as many Anglo-Scottish flights are connections to international ones and as such to not suffer from security check delays.

You can boost demand significantly by shifting the Newcastle traffic, which is similar if not larger than the Scottish traffic due to the rail network already holding almost all of the modal share. Travel times under 2hrs to London are a possibility.

4. You would either have to abandon Newcastle to become even more of a backwater or you would have to build the line as far as Newcastle anyway, resulting in the Scottish link becoming a complete boondoggle.
HS2 Ltd. wants the western alignment so it can justify a Newcastle link later on, additionally it has unlimited money in said current climate (where politicians will spend ludicrous sums on "green" transport policies).
The Eastern alignment also gets you a fourth connection between Glasgow and Edinburgh that would make a shuttle service with 19 minute travel times feasible (based on existing Shinkansen timetables on a line with a 270kph top speed that requires tilting trains to exceed 250)

Why do I have to keep making this argument?

You don't with me, I agree with you! I'd like (although I'm unlikely to get despite Greengauge 21 suggesting it) a southward link to Stratford down the east of the country as well, saving a lot of time for a direct route to Paris. Still, let's just stick to the northern side for now. There's not just Newcastle, Darlington has good access to Teesside with the potential for much more with an upgraded station and some diversion of traffic. Heading beyond there, and assuming it's possible to link to Newcastle Central via the old route of the Newcastle & Carlisle crossing the Tyne at Blaydon. That cuts out the congested King Edward VII Bridge. Beyond the station, bring the ECML up to four tracks as Morpeth, then swing west and follow the A667 to Coldstream (there used to be a railway there once, sometimes used as an ECML diversionary route). Eventually, join the Waverley Line at Dalkeith and use that to access Edinburgh Waverley. The four northern platforms are long enough to cope with a full-length HS2 train, so presumably the southern ones could as well. Through the tunnels to Haymarket, then parts of new line to Glasgow, or just use the existing line via Carstairs until a new one that cuts the corner to Motherwell is built. Unfortunately, Queen Street isn't long enough and St Enoch is unavailable.

Workable?

 

[Stats]

The Scots had already announced that they intended to conduct their own appraisal of options, with both Eastern and Western alignments possible. However, I suspect that the Western alignment is much the more likely; firstly because it is shorter and cheaper, secondly becuase it is clear that HS2 ltd prefer it, and thirdly because it would be faster and more direct.

So far as I am aware, the only alignment that appears to be already ruled out would be that following the ECML via Berwick, as the route along the Scots coast would be too twisty, and too indirect.

It has been reported that Scottish Ministers have been presented with three routes with the criteria that all trains must serve Edinburgh and Glasgow city centres and have access to the rest of the network:
1. Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow east of the Pennines
2. Carlisle - Glasgow/Edinburgh west of the hill range
3. Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow through the Southern Uplands

Routes that were considered and ruled out were parallel to the ECML and routes along the A68 and M74.

I don't understand why you think the Scots would favour a Western alignment. It wouldn't be shorter or cheaper. The border is much further South in the west. A route via the East would cover less distance in Scotland and would give them a high speed Glasgow-Edinburgh link.

 

[tbtc]

Why do I have to keep making this argument?

Two problems with your argument (to me):

Firstly, using the logic of it being cheaper to have Glasgow/Edinburgh passengers going via Newcastle, it would also be cheaper having Leeds passengers going via Manchester (i.e. the Tory "S" shaped plan for HS2) - the logical end of your idea appears to fit with this idea of having just one long winding HS2 route (rather than branches)

Secondly, by trying to do everything with one line you limit the potential for further high speed routes.

 

[HSTEd]

Two problems with your argument (to me):

Firstly, using the logic of it being cheaper to have Glasgow/Edinburgh passengers going via Newcastle, it would also be cheaper having Leeds passengers going via Manchester (i.e. the Tory "S" shaped plan for HS2) - the logical end of your idea appears to fit with this idea of having just one long winding HS2 route (rather than branches)

Secondly, by trying to do everything with one line you limit the potential for further high speed routes.

1. Sending Leeds passengers via Manchester would bypass the million+ people in the Nottingham and Sheffield areas unless you double back on yourself.
It would also require you to build a transpennine connection whereas the current Y formation prevents having to build through terrain quite that formidable.

2. Additionally there is sufficient traffic to justify both arms of the Y. You cannot say the same for a Scottish spur connection, this way the same 2tph can serve Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle simultaneously, making greater use of the highly constrained paths through the core section and allowing efficient use of longer trainsets.

3.There is no case for a direct Manchester-Scotland connection, this way you can use Newcastle to help pay for the link that would never be worthwhile otherwise.

4. As a line with ~15tph+ capacity is unlikely to ever be saturated above Leeds/Manchester anyway, connecting as many destinations to it as possible is the logical course of action.
We don't build these lines for there own sake, we build them because there is demand.

 

[LE Greys]

Two problems with your argument (to me):

Firstly, using the logic of it being cheaper to have Glasgow/Edinburgh passengers going via Newcastle, it would also be cheaper having Leeds passengers going via Manchester (i.e. the Tory "S" shaped plan for HS2) - the logical end of your idea appears to fit with this idea of having just one long winding HS2 route (rather than branches)

Secondly, by trying to do everything with one line you limit the potential for further high speed routes.

Well, yes and no. That was the original Greengauge 21 plan, although they would have ended up with an "8" if you include the York-Stratford line and the extension along the WCML. It's really a question of capacity at the southern end. From my point of view, that is the main problem with a single line. How much traffic can you shoe-horn onto London-Birmingham? The ideal would eventually be two parallel lines, one to serve either side of the country and both reaching Scotland. That's probably never going to happen, but we just might get two parallel lines for the southern half. Part of the point of LGV Rhin-Rhône is to act as a relief route for LGV Sud-Est, although it doesn't cover the most congested bit, Alsy to Paris. Will it happen?

 

[WatcherZero]

The economics im hearing does favour the western alignment, theres thought to be capacity left in the ECML while the WCML is short of paths with demands for more coming in particular from freight companies who would like to see the old WCML become a freight/rural route. Ironically also not serving those population centers on the east coast would mean large journey time improvements for Scotland-London meaning big bucks in the economic appraisals. Like on the Great Western there is also thought to be room for upgrading the line speed of the ECML in the future once ERTMS signalling comes in.

 

[LE Greys]

The economics im hearing does favour the western alignment, theres thought to be capacity left in the ECML while the WCML is short of paths with demands for more coming in particular from freight companies who would like to see the old WCML become a freight/rural route. Ironically also not serving those population centers on the east coast would mean large journey time improvements for Scotland-London meaning big bucks in the economic appraisals. Like on the Great Western there is also thought to be room for upgrading the line speed of the ECML in the future.

There's always an alternative argument, but this one seems strange. Pay for a £10-billion upgrade of a line to increase passenger running speeds, then bung loads of traffic on it and start calling for yet more upgrades while the parallel line that's had hardly any money spent on it for twenty years still has gaps in capacity caused by bottlenecks that could be sorted out. Some of them are being sorted out, but not Welwyn or Werrington or the Leamside diversion, all of which would have been way cheaper than all the money poured into the WCML. Fling a few peanuts our way and we'll be happy. Anyway, I'd have thought that a service from Glasgow to London would not call at all stations anyway, with Edinburgh-Newcastle-Leeds-Birmingham being most likely.
</rant>

 

[WatcherZero]

The Northern WCML hasnt been upgraded, there is/was a program of works being developed to boost speeds in the time period between the completion of phase 1 and phase2/3 so the 110mph non-tilt classic compatibles wouldnt end up being slower than the the classic trains over the London-Glasgow/Edinburgh full length. If they do proceed with Scottish HS2 I doubt that would go ahead.

 

[HSTEd]

The economics im hearing does favour the western alignment, theres thought to be capacity left in the ECML while the WCML is short of paths with demands for more coming in particular from freight companies who would like to see the old WCML become a freight/rural route. Ironically also not serving those population centers on the east coast would mean large journey time improvements for Scotland-London meaning big bucks in the economic appraisals. Like on the Great Western there is also thought to be room for upgrading the line speed of the ECML in the future once ERTMS signalling comes in.

Yes, if "big bucks" is equivalent to ~11 minutes for the Glasgow passengers (if the speed is so important there is nothing stopping you running trains non-stop through Newcastle and Edinburgh), ~breakeven for the Edinburgh passengers and probably -40 minutes for Newcastle passengers who probably outnumber the Glasgow Passengers.

Those eleven minutes aren't going to make much difference, the route would already be fast enough to destroy non transfer domestic flights, but there really is not enough capacity to justify building a hundred miles of high speed railway line through a huge mountain range before you even get to the borders.

Additionally I doubt there is enough capacity on the ECML to allow for 186mph trains, and the line won't fit double decks, using up precious paths on the core section for no good reason.
This way you could extend the planned 3tph to Leeds all the way to Glasgow, reconfigure the Classic Compatible trains to free at least one path and get atleast 4tph to Glasgow, all capable of being formed of 400m double deck trains.

Oh and you get the potential for a turn up and ride Glasgow-Edinburgh shuttle so fast that Glasgow-Edinburgh will merge into one economic entity.
(320kph trains with Cl378 interior anyone?)

You can't hope to get that sort of frequency to all three destinations I propose serving without resorting to 140m AGVs/shrunken CC AGVs or similar.

 

[nerd]

1. The Western Alignment would not be cheaper, going from Manchester to Glasgow by the straightest possible alignment via Carlisle is ~305km, with a spur to serve Edinburgh being ~70km if you really want a reasonably direct route above all else.
That means 375km of track.

The Eastern alignment would go via Newcastle, I will include York and connecting to Glasgow via Edinburgh (with an inland alignment from Newcastle to Edinburgh), this comes out to a similar count of 370km or so of track

Additionally the terrain for a significant fraction of the Eastern alignment is nice flat effectively tableland with only a hundred miles of "difficult" terrain compared to 200+ for the western alignment (crossing the Lake District and the borders rather than just the latter).

2. While it is true that trains to Glasgow would be faster via Manchester than Leeds, the difference in track is only roughly 60km or so between the two routes.
This means that a train doing 320kph (as the train would simply cruise for longer at its top speed) would eat up the extra distance in eleven minutes. This is hardly significant on the end of a ~3hr journey.

3. There is insufficient traffic on the western alignment. If you look at a map of the UK's population density you can see that between Manchester and the Scottish Central belt is nothing, while the eastern alignment has Newcastle and its surrounds.

A Scottish HS2 link would never be viable on just traffic to points south of Manchester, two 400m trains per hour splitting at Carstairs or similar would easily saturate demand even if the air market was completely obliterated which is unlikely as many Anglo-Scottish flights are connections to international ones and as such to not suffer from security check delays.

You can boost demand significantly by shifting the Newcastle traffic, which is similar if not larger than the Scottish traffic due to the rail network already holding almost all of the modal share. Travel times under 2hrs to London are a possibility.

4. You would either have to abandon Newcastle to become even more of a backwater or you would have to build the line as far as Newcastle anyway, resulting in the Scottish link becoming a complete boondoggle.
HS2 Ltd. wants the western alignment so it can justify a Newcastle link later on, additionally it has unlimited money in said current climate (where politicians will spend ludicrous sums on "green" transport policies).
The Eastern alignment also gets you a fourth connection between Glasgow and Edinburgh that would make a shuttle service with 19 minute travel times feasible (based on existing Shinkansen timetables on a line with a 270kph top speed that requires tilting trains to exceed 250)

Why do I have to keep making this argument?

As Stats has noted, the Scots government and HS2 appear to be talking about three basic options for linking into the English network. One going via Carlisle and Preston; and two going via Newcastle and Leeds. It looks as though whichever they choose is likely to be taken on by the DfT as determining the Scots routing along HS2. So my views are not important.

However, to take your specific points.

a. The route western route would run from Wigan to Glasgow along the WCML alignment - with a three-way junction at Carstairs. I make the total length about 367 km. The most likely alternative would be Glasgow - Edinnburgh outskirts - Newcastle through the Scots Lowlands, and then on to Leeds. That makes 406 km by my reckoning - depending on how long the Edinburgh 'spur' line is going to be.

A lot of course depends on how far beyond Leeds and Manc the HS2 line will be going before meeting up with the ECML/WCML - but whichever, the western route is shorter.

b. The eastern alignment is a lot slower for traffic from Glasgow to Euston - not just becuase it is longer, but because negotiating the outskirts of Edinburgh is going to be tricky (I am assuming no one is intening to create a high speed tunnel under central Edinburgh). Even if it is only an extra 20 mins or so, it will still raise political hackles between the two cities.

c. Your point about population centres may be disputed by residents of Preston; but in any case is entirely irrelevant. Your approach contradicts the entire business model of HS2 Ltd. The Euston services are high speed trains and are justified entirely by end-to-end traffic - they mostly won't do intermediate stops, and they do not link intermediate cities. If they cannot be fully justified on end-to-end traffic, they won't get built. I imagine that - if the eastern alignment is chosen; the two trains per hour from Scotland will run Glasgow/Edinburgh - Edinburgh outskirts (for Edinburgh airport) - Old Oak Common (for Heathrow)- Euston. Perhaps one Scots service per hour may stop at Brum interchange (for Brum airport). If the Western Alignment happens, they may stop at Manc Interchange (for Manc airport). So the fact that they may be passing near to Newcastle makes no odds - it doesn't have a major airport to link to. Newcastle has its own HS trains to London, and just like the Scots, they will run direct and won't be picking up business along the way.

Of course there will then be additional non-Euston trains along the northen arms of the Y network. Glasgow-Brum will be possible whichever alignment the Scots choose. The western alignment makes it posible to run Glasgow-Manc and Glasgow-Liverpool services; the Eastern alignment would make Glasgow-Leeds and Glasgow-Newcastle as possible services. I imagine that the Scots will be conducting their own appraisal of which route would generate more business; though I myself would suspect that Manc and Liverpool would get the nod.

 

[LE Greys]

Your point about population centres may be disputed by residents of Preston; but in any case is entirely irrelevant. Your approach contradicts the entire business model of HS2 Ltd. The Euston services are high speed trains and are justified entirely by end-to-end traffic - they mostly won't do intermediate stops, and they do not link intermediate cities. If they cannot be fully justified on end-to-end traffic, they won't get built. I imagine that - if the eastern alignment is chosen; the two trains per hour from Scotland will run Glasgow/Edinburgh - Edinburgh outskirts (for Edinburgh airport) - Old Oak Common (for Heathrow)- Euston. Perhaps one Scots service per hour may stop at Brum interchange (for Brum airport). If the Western Alignment happens, they may stop at Manc Interchange (for Manc airport). So the fact that they may be passing near to Newcastle makes no odds - it doesn't have a major airport to link to. Newcastle has its own HS trains to London, and just like the Scots, they will run direct and won't be picking up business along the way.

One has to wonder what planet these planners live on. Shinkansens have intermediate stops, TGVs have intermediate stops, ICEs have intermediate stops, ordinary inter-city trains have intermediate stops... :roll: Still, never mind all that. The obvious approach for Edinburgh, assuming you don't just pass straight through Waverley (which is easily long enough to cope with CC-stock) is to make use of the Edinburgh road bypass route. Going round via Leith is a bit of a non-starter, and the suburban route is far too twisty.

 

[Waverley125]

Intermediate stops are definitely part of the HS business model. An incredibly strong argument in favour of routing 'through' trains on the eastern arm via Sheffield & Leeds city centres is the cut in journey time between those two cities (from 45 minutes to ~20 mins) and on to Newcastle (Sheffield to Newcastle drops from 2hr 15 to 1 hr, and Leeds to newcastle from 1hr 30 to 40 minutes).

 

[nerd]

Intermediate stops are definitely part of the HS business model. An incredibly strong argument in favour of routing 'through' trains on the eastern arm via Sheffield & Leeds city centres is the cut in journey time between those two cities (from 45 minutes to ~20 mins) and on to Newcastle (Sheffield to Newcastle drops from 2hr 15 to 1 hr, and Leeds to newcastle from 1hr 30 to 40 minutes).

Newcastle-Euston trains won't stop at Sheffield or Leeds; to get to Sheffield, you will need to get a Newcastle-Brum service.

Equally, it is currently looking most unlikely that HS2 will have a spur into Sheffield city centre.

It does appear that the current service specification is assuming that all Leeds services to Euston will stop at Meadowhall, and most at East Midlands Interchange; but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. Elsewhere on the system; Brum, Manc, Newcastle, Liverpool, once on the HS2 track itself, there are minimal stops other than at OOC.

The non-Euston services do look more like conventional 'stoppers'; but they are not where HS2 will be making its money.

And yes, this is entirely unlike the business model in Japan, France, Germany and Spain. But it is much more like the current WCML model - Manc services to Euston don't currently go through Brum, nor do Liverpool services; and Glasgow services don't go through Manc.

The reason appears to be the need to be able to fit 18 paths per hour ineach direction down two tracks (where the Shinkansen is limited to 9). All the trains have to run at the same speed, and must get up to speed on an extended loop line before filtering into the mainline. Having numerous intermediate stops would make this very difficult.

 

[HSTEd]

c. Your point about population centres may be disputed by residents of Preston; but in any case is entirely irrelevant. Your approach contradicts the entire business model of HS2 Ltd. The Euston services are high speed trains and are justified entirely by end-to-end traffic - they mostly won't do intermediate stops, and they do not link intermediate cities. If they cannot be fully justified on end-to-end traffic, they won't get built. I imagine that - if the eastern alignment is chosen; the two trains per hour from Scotland will run Glasgow/Edinburgh - Edinburgh outskirts (for Edinburgh airport) - Old Oak Common (for Heathrow)- Euston. Perhaps one Scots service per hour may stop at Brum interchange (for Brum airport). If the Western Alignment happens, they may stop at Manc Interchange (for Manc airport). So the fact that they may be passing near to Newcastle makes no odds - it doesn't have a major airport to link to. Newcastle has its own HS trains to London, and just like the Scots, they will run direct and won't be picking up business along the way.

Of course there will then be additional non-Euston trains along the northen arms of the Y network. Glasgow-Brum will be possible whichever alignment the Scots choose. The western alignment makes it posible to run Glasgow-Manc and Glasgow-Liverpool services; the Eastern alignment would make Glasgow-Leeds and Glasgow-Newcastle as possible services. I imagine that the Scots will be conducting their own appraisal of which route would generate more business; though I myself would suspect that Manc and Liverpool would get the nod.

Then there will be not be a High speed line to Scotland, purely Scotland-London services are not enough to justify a ten-twenty billion pound project.
And where will the paths come from for your separate Newcastle services that wont pick up business?

There is a reason no other high speed railway in the world runs significant non stop services end to end.... its a bad business model, it completely neglects the main strengths of trains.... being able to make multiple stops.

And about these Newcastle trains..... how will they manage to beat the existing trains on the ECML significantly? Without the eastern alignment they are ~80 minutes from Leeds.

And if you plan to build a separate spur to Newcastle regardless.... why bother with the western alignment as you gain essentially nothing apart from those ten minutes to Glasgow.

Additionally calculating the distances from Wigan is cheating, unless you want to loose half an hour crawling through north Manchester.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Many moons ago the Caledonian Railway was planned and built as the "only" rail link between England and Scotland, hence the single route north from Carlisle and then junctions at Carstairs (for Edinburgh) and Motherwell (for Stirling, Aberdeen etc).
Within living memory the motorway planners took the same view, hence the M6/M74 parallel to the WCML rather than up the the A1 which is still not dualled all the way.
What makes you think it will be different this time?

 

[HSTEd]

Many moons ago the Caledonian Railway was planned and built as the "only" rail link between England and Scotland, hence the single route north from Carlisle and then junctions at Carstairs (for Edinburgh) and Motherwell (for Stirling, Aberdeen etc).
Within living memory the motorway planners took the same view, hence the M6/M74 parallel to the WCML rather than up the the A1 which is still not dualled all the way.
What makes you think it will be different this time?

Because the aim is not to simply get to Scotland as fast as possible as it was in the past, is has to be to provide service to the largest number of possible of people. "High Speed Rail has to go where the people are"

Central Lancashire (including Preston) has roughly 350,000 people.
Tyne and Wear alone has over a million.

And then we add the areas south of it into the picture.

Unless the plan is to leave Newcastle to rot at least half of the eastern line will have to be built anyway.
The same cannot be said for Preston.