North East ECML cut offs

[stevieinselby]

The problem with spenidng money on the north WCML is that not many people are around to use it.

The London-Scotland market is tiny, and the only settlement of note between the central belt and Lancaster is Carlisle - which whilst not insignificant is hardly a bustling metropolis.

Rail upgrades on the the Anglo Scottish routes should be focussed on the east coast, because that is where the people, and thus passengers are.

In 2022/23, there were 1.3m passengers between Euston/Kings Cross and Glasgow/Edinburgh – and that's before you even look at passengers travelling that leg as part of a longer journey. Edinburgh was the second most popular destination from Kings Cross, behind only Cambridge.
And while I don't have the more recent figures to hand, I'm pretty sure the numbers will have increased since then.

Rail upgrades on the Anglo-Scottish routes should be focused on Anglo-Scottish passengers. Making 1 million passengers travelling from London to Edinburgh catch a train that is also being used by passengers to other very busy stations like York and Newcastle isn't necessarily a benefit for Anglo-Scottish passengers, and given the capacity constraints on the ECML corridor there is a very strong case for saying that it is a disbenefit.

The main market on the East Coast is likely London-Edinburgh. Post-HS2, I think the plan is for this to move over to the WCML.

Yes – at least, with the full HS2 plan that was going to be the case – there would be HS2 trains from Euston that would split at Carlisle with portions continuing to Edinburgh and Glasgow. This would have been the primary route from London to Edinburgh, with 2tph calling at Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Preston, Carlisle, Haymarket and Waverley, with an end-to-end journey time of 3h48, which is over half an hour quicker than the current ECML service calling at Kings Cross, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick and Waverley.

While I don't know that concrete plans were in place for the classic lines post-HS2, the most sensible option would be to add more stops onto the KGX–EDB services, in order to provide more capacity at intermediate stations, because far fewer passengers would be travelling end-to-end. (This would in turn make the ECML services slower again from London to Edinburgh, extending the time saving for passengers using HS2 and thereby cementing it as the main route between the two.

The problem is that any infrastructure constructed on the WCML to help it take over the Scotland traffic will likely be heavily underutilised.
There just aren't enough trains or traffic centres between Preston and the Central Belt.

The WCML is already getting close to capacity between Preston and the Central Belt, even before we add in more frequent HS2 trains. That there is little in the way of intermediate destinations doesn't matter – there is a large demand for travel between London/Midlands/the urban North West and Scotland, and unless you can create a wormhole that has one end at Fulwood and the other end at Carstairs, all that traffic will be using the WCML to get between them.

 

[HSTEd]

In 2022/23, there were 1.3m passengers between Euston/Kings Cross and Glasgow/Edinburgh – and that's before you even look at passengers travelling that leg as part of a longer journey. Edinburgh was the second most popular destination from Kings Cross, behind only Cambridge.

It is now (23/24) apparently third, after Cambridge and Peterborough, but only just.
Fourth place is Leeds, which is within a few percent.

Rail upgrades on the Anglo-Scottish routes should be focused on Anglo-Scottish passengers. Making 1 million passengers travelling from London to Edinburgh catch a train that is also being used by passengers to other very busy stations like York and Newcastle isn't necessarily a benefit for Anglo-Scottish passengers, and given the capacity constraints on the ECML corridor there is a very strong case for saying that it is a disbenefit.

1 million passengers from London to Edinburgh can't fill a substantial number of trains alone.

Aggregating flows provides economies of scale and makes higher intensities economic, which in turn makes the service more convenient and more attractive.

Yes – at least, with the full HS2 plan that was going to be the case – there would be HS2 trains from Euston that would split at Carlisle with portions continuing to Edinburgh and Glasgow. This would have been the primary route from London to Edinburgh, with 2tph calling at Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Preston, Carlisle, Haymarket and Waverley, with an end-to-end journey time of 3h48, which is over half an hour quicker than the current ECML service calling at Kings Cross, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick and Waverley.

There isn't really a decisive advantage in the absence of Phase 2 to Golborne however.
It's also not clear that there is even any capacity for additional Scotland trains given the junction constraints at Colwich and Handsacre.

The WCML is already getting close to capacity between Preston and the Central Belt, even before we add in more frequent HS2 trains.

Isn't that mostly because low power Class 66 freight trains take forever to crawl up Shap?
Fixing that would require spending so much money (or political capital) that spending it on the east is likely to get better returns.

That there is little in the way of intermediate destinations doesn't matter – there is a large demand for travel between London/Midlands/the urban North West and Scotland

A randomly selected hour (1500-1600 15/07/25) on realtimetrains at Penrith seems to suggest only 3-4 trains per hour per direction.
Any infrastructure investment on the west coast line will only ever benefit a small number of trains - there won't ever be that much traffic.

Even if all Edinburgh traffic transfers to the WCML, its only around 5 Pendolinos full per day.

, and unless you can create a wormhole that has one end at Fulwood and the other end at Carstairs, all that traffic will be using the WCML to get between them.

The TPRU will put York an hour-ish from Manchester.
That means Manchester-Edinburgh via Leeds would be close to competitive to the route via the WCML.

I'd argue any money spent on Anglo-Scottish improvements would be better spent on the East Coast, where it can benefit more people, because whichever route you select will end up being the notionally fastest. Just that a lot more people are on the East Coast to see that.

 

[Solweytracker]

I'd argue any money spent on Anglo-Scottish improvements would be better spent on the East Coast, where it can benefit more people, because whichever route you select will end up being the notionally fastest. Just that a lot more people are on the East Coast to see that.

Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Inverclyde, and Ayrshire geographically and economically deserve a better service south than being at the posterior end of Edinburgh nonetheless.

 

[stevieinselby]

It is now (23/24) apparently third, after Cambridge and Peterborough, but only just.
Fourth place is Leeds, which is within a few percent.

1 million passengers from London to Edinburgh can't fill a substantial number of trains alone.

1.7 million passengers from London to Scotland (all stations) would pretty much fill 10 trains a day, every day of the year.
By the time you've added on passengers travelling from other places in England and Wales who would change to an HS2 train to get to Scotland, and the substantial passenger growth that would be expected from the improved level of service and the fact that the operators would no longer need to use high fares to throttle demand down to capacity then you're easily justifying a half-hourly service throughout the day.

Aggregating flows provides economies of scale and makes higher intensities economic, which in turn makes the service more convenient and more attractive.

Up to the point where capacity is maxed out, which is the reason HS2 is needed to relieve the ECML and WCML as they stand.

There isn't really a decisive advantage in the absence of Phase 2 to Golborne however.
It's also not clear that there is even any capacity for additional Scotland trains given the junction constraints at Colwich and Handsacre.

Agreed that after Sunak's final act of vandalism, the WCML will be completely hobbled and HS2 won't be able to fulfil its purpose, and the ECML will be left to struggle on being overcrowded and unreliable.

A randomly selected hour (1500-1600 15/07/25) on realtimetrains at Penrith seems to suggest only 3-4 trains per hour per direction.
Any infrastructure investment on the west coast line will only ever benefit a small number of trains - there won't ever be that much traffic.

There are on average 4 trains per hour each way through Berwick-upon-Tweed, just the same.

Even if all Edinburgh traffic transfers to the WCML, its only around 5 Pendolinos full per day.

It depends how narrowly you define "Edinburgh traffic".

The TPRU will put York an hour-ish from Manchester.
That means Manchester-Edinburgh via Leeds would be close to competitive to the route via the WCML.

I'd argue any money spent on Anglo-Scottish improvements would be better spent on the East Coast, where it can benefit more people, because whichever route you select will end up being the notionally fastest. Just that a lot more people are on the East Coast to see that.

The ECML can't accommodate all the people who want to travel on it now, the amount of work that would be needed to allow it to meet future demand would be orders of magnitude more than the "cut-offs" at the top of the thread, you'd be looking at basically a new high speed line running parallel but with the disadvantage that there are more major cities to either bulldoze a route through or bypass and therefore not serve anyway.

 

[Brubulus]

It is now (23/24) apparently third, after Cambridge and Peterborough, but only just.
Fourth place is Leeds, which is within a few percent.

1 million passengers from London to Edinburgh can't fill a substantial number of trains alone.

Aggregating flows provides economies of scale and makes higher intensities economic, which in turn makes the service more convenient and more attractive.


There isn't really a decisive advantage in the absence of Phase 2 to Golborne however.
It's also not clear that there is even any capacity for additional Scotland trains given the junction constraints at Colwich and Handsacre.

Isn't that mostly because low power Class 66 freight trains take forever to crawl up Shap?
Fixing that would require spending so much money (or political capital) that spending it on the east is likely to get better returns.

A randomly selected hour (1500-1600 15/07/25) on realtimetrains at Penrith seems to suggest only 3-4 trains per hour per direction.
Any infrastructure investment on the west coast line will only ever benefit a small number of trains - there won't ever be that much traffic.

Even if all Edinburgh traffic transfers to the WCML, its only around 5 Pendolinos full per day.


The TPRU will put York an hour-ish from Manchester.
That means Manchester-Edinburgh via Leeds would be close to competitive to the route via the WCML.

I'd argue any money spent on Anglo-Scottish improvements would be better spent on the East Coast, where it can benefit more people, because whichever route you select will end up being the notionally fastest. Just that a lot more people are on the East Coast to see that.

Phase 1 will reduce London-Edinburgh to 3h56.
The primary priority in rail spending must be actually building HS2. The Manchester approach is incredibly expensive and now on a different budget line. The only properly expensive part of the remaining line is Crewe Tunnel, but I suspect it would be more expensive to redesign to bypass Crewe entirely, though I suspect savings can be made by not any sort of HS2 facilities at Crewe.

If HS2 is actually built, the best way of reaching Leeds will be London-Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds, being around 20 minutes faster than via the ECML.

The only reasonable cut offs are Darlington-Durham, but that will only reduce London and Manchester to Newcastle and Leeds-Scotland journey times. There is no reasonable way that ECML cutoffs will mean Manchester-Edinburgh is on the ECML. Birmingham, London and Manchester to Scotland services will all be on the WCML.

However, there needs to be a focus on the main priority, which is salvaging something from HS2. Phase 1 can be salvaged to an extent with extensive split/join (both Liverpool services to split at Crewe) to enable 1 fast splitting train and hour to Scotland, alongside a HS service from Birmingham to Manchester.

Removing 13 minutes from the ECML will be no easy feat (to bring back London-Scotland). Morpeth might save 4 minutes, with another 8 being saved by a Durham bypass, then the final minute can be gained by 140mph. The cost of all that is likely enough to get HS2 to bypass both Colwich and Stafford, which would provide much more substantial benefits, alongside getting another 5 minutes off London-Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

Phase 1 will reduce London-Edinburgh to 3h56.

So hardly a decisive victory for HS2. Which is probably why London-Edinburgh times aren't even listed on the old HS2 Phase 2A journey time charts like this one I found.

The primary priority in rail spending must be actually building HS2. The Manchester approach is incredibly expensive and now on a different budget line. The only properly expensive part of the remaining line is Crewe Tunnel, but I suspect it would be more expensive to redesign to bypass Crewe entirely, though I suspect savings can be made by not any sort of HS2 facilities at Crewe.

All of HS2 and its associated works are incredibly expensive.
Before cancellation even HS2 admitted that Phase 2A was expected to cost ~£7bn, who knows what the actual outturn would be.

I don't see any plausible route for the project to be ressurected in any real form.
The delays and admissions of overspend keep coming.

The project is still being actively poisoned politically.

If HS2 is actually built, the best way of reaching Leeds will be London-Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds, being around 20 minutes faster than via the ECML.

Well yes indeed, even with no further money spent.
Assuming the 67 minutes to Manchester, London to York via Manchester would be at about 2hr10 post TPRU.

Still slower than the fastest york trains, but still potentially interesting from a capacity perspective.

The only reasonable cut offs are Darlington-Durham, but that will only reduce London and Manchester to Newcastle and Leeds-Scotland journey times. There is no reasonable way that ECML cutoffs will mean Manchester-Edinburgh is on the ECML. Birmingham, London and Manchester to Scotland services will all be on the WCML.

At that point, Manchester-Leeds or Crossgates-York become potential ECML cutoffs I suppose!


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

1.7 million passengers from London to Scotland (all stations) would pretty much fill 10 trains a day, every day of the year.

By the time you've added on passengers travelling from other places in England and Wales who would change to an HS2 train to get to Scotland, and the substantial passenger growth that would be expected from the improved level of service and the fact that the operators would no longer need to use high fares to throttle demand down to capacity then you're easily justifying a half-hourly service throughout the day.

I must admit that I am skeptical of that, considering that 1.7 million passengers on the 1100 seats of a 400m HS2 formation (as projected for Scottish services) would require only 4 trains a day. Half hourly is more like 30.
Traffic could double and you still aren't looking at very high occupancy at all without a vast number of intermediate passengers.

You have to go an awful long way down the destination list for Edinburgh before you find a location that you would reasonably reach via Carstairs and the WCML.
I think the first one is Manchester Piccadily, and thats only ~82,000, and post TPRU that won't even be a slam dunk.

Agreed that after Sunak's final act of vandalism, the WCML will be completely hobbled and HS2 won't be able to fulfil its purpose, and the ECML will be left to struggle on being overcrowded and unreliable.

Arguably the London-Edinburgh usefulness of HS2 was already kind of crippled by the decision to detahc Golborne, long before the final cancellation of Phase 2A.

There are on average 4 trains per hour each way through Berwick-upon-Tweed, just the same.

Well yes, but the point is that this low traffic density segment is much shorter on the ECML side.
It's 250km through what amounts to a desert on the WCML (Lancaster to Edinburgh) and 330km to the Liverpool-Manchester conurbation, which is the northernmost settlement remotely comparable to Tyne and Wear.
It's more like 175km on the East Coast.

The ECML can't accommodate all the people who want to travel on it now, the amount of work that would be needed to allow it to meet future demand would be orders of magnitude more than the "cut-offs" at the top of the thread, you'd be looking at basically a new high speed line running parallel but with the disadvantage that there are more major cities to either bulldoze a route through or bypass and therefore not serve anyway.

Well, once you abandon any notion of 360kph running, a high speed line can stop rather frequently and still absolutely crush a conventional railway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The long-proposed Morpeth bypass seems like a good idea for starters.
Land prices in the area aren't too high, most of the optimal route is clear (apart from a section at Longhirst Hall Golf Course - perhaps you could tunnel for this short section), and you have the potential for more suburban trains from Morpeth into Newcastle via Bedlington if there is capacity released by rerouting LNER/Lumo services onto the high speed bypass.

To deal with local concerns about losing long-distance connectivity, you could build a Morpeth Parkway station near the southern junction of the new line where some services could stop.

 

[Zomboid]

Most trains don't stop at Morpeth, do they?
So leave the ones that do on the existing route and the ones that don't can take the hypothetical cut off.

Though once HS2 is taking most of the Edinburgh to London traffic into Euston (I doubt OOC will be anything like as attractive for that market) it'll be more possible to give the stations north of Newcastle more calls in the longer distance services.

 

[Northumbriana]

A station on a relatively short high speed bypass would be pointless.

Agree with making the West Coast route the main Anglo Scotland route. It doesn't matter that there isn't much between Preston and Edinburgh/Glasgow. If anything that's a positive as it means trains can go a lot longer at high speed rather than needing to stop regularly. Connecting the West Midlands, Manchester/Liverpool with Glasgow and Edinburgh is the most important benefit here.

And if it means ECML traffic to Edinburgh eases up to leave a lot more room for locals then even better.

 

[zwk500]

To deal with local concerns about losing long-distance connectivity, you could build a Morpeth Parkway station near the southern junction of the new line where some services could stop.

This would destroy all the benefits of building a cutoff.

 

[swt_passenger]

The long-proposed Morpeth bypass seems like a good idea for starters.
Land prices in the area aren't too high, most of the optimal route is clear (apart from a section at Longhirst Hall Golf Course - perhaps you could tunnel for this short section), and you have the potential for more suburban trains from Morpeth into Newcastle via Bedlington if there is capacity released by rerouting LNER/Lumo services onto the high speed bypass.

To deal with local concerns about losing long-distance connectivity, you could build a Morpeth Parkway station near the southern junction of the new line where some services could stop.

If the bypass is starting northwards from Killingworth it won’t increase capacity south of Benton Junction, which already limits the Ashington service to 2 tph. Northern have said they cannot run more trains between Benton and Newcastle.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Most trains don't stop at Morpeth, do they?
So leave the ones that do on the existing route and the ones that don't can take the hypothetical cut off.

Though once HS2 is taking most of the Edinburgh to London traffic into Euston (I doubt OOC will be anything like as attractive for that market) it'll be more possible to give the stations north of Newcastle more calls in the longer distance services.

True. I don't think HS2 will ever practically take enough of the Edinburgh to London traffic into Euston, because we'll never build enough of it (and new stretches of the WCML) to provide enough capacity to make it worthwhile.

A station on a relatively short high speed bypass would be pointless.

Possibly, but sometimes it's worth appeasing locals to get on with it, instead of fighting for years through public inquiries and MPs holding up the development and construction process.

Agree with making the West Coast route the main Anglo Scotland route. It doesn't matter that there isn't much between Preston and Edinburgh/Glasgow. If anything that's a positive as it means trains can go a lot longer at high speed rather than needing to stop regularly. Connecting the West Midlands, Manchester/Liverpool with Glasgow and Edinburgh is the most important benefit here.

There's not enough capacity unless we build 1) HS2 phase 2a 2) the Golborne link and 3) further upgrades of the WCML (including more high speed bypasses of potentially Lancaster, Oxenholme to Penrith etc.).

This would destroy all the benefits of building a cutoff.

Maybe it would, perhaps people would be satisfied with existing services, but it is also prudent to involve inflationary risk from project delays.

If the bypass is starting northwards from Killingworth it won’t increase capacity south of Benton Junction, which already limits the Ashington service to 2 tph. Northern have said they cannot run more trains between Benton and Newcastle.

Fair point. Perhaps operating Ashington as a branch of the Tyne and Wear Metro, and using the 2tph rail paths to Morpeth via Bedlington would be wise.

 

[A S Leib]

True. I don't think HS2 will ever practically take enough of . Perhaps operating Ashington as a branch of the Tyne and Wear Metro, and using the 2tph rail paths to Morpeth via Bedlington would be wise.

That would be too slow to be competitive with the bus, from what I've heard about the decisions taken before construction.

Ashington to Northumberland Park is timed for 23 minutes and there to Monument Metro is 20 minutes against 14 to Central high level, so I'm not sure how much weight that argument holds.

 

[swt_passenger]

Fair point. Perhaps operating Ashington as a branch of the Tyne and Wear Metro, and using the 2tph rail paths to Morpeth via Bedlington would be wise.

That’s been discussed in the dedicated Northumberland line thread a few times now, (ever since the first page), and was ruled out by Northumberland CC extremely early on. The stated reasoning was that through running from Ashington using the metro route through South Gosforth would not be competitive on timing with the existing fast bus routes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That’s been discussed in the dedicated Northumberland line thread a few times now, (ever since the first page), and was ruled out by Northumberland CC extremely early on. The stated reasoning was that through running from Ashington using the metro route through South Gosforth would not be competitive on timing with the existing fast bus routes.

Even with a change at Bedlington onto NR? Fair enough

 

[Zomboid]

Even with a change at Bedlington onto NR? Fair enough

How might that work? An extension of the Morpeth stopper? (Which might be a sensible thing to do anyway - and perhaps a cut-off would allow that service to increase in frequency too)

 

[swt_passenger]

Even with a change at Bedlington onto NR? Fair enough

I suspect the point was they wanted to provide the through trains for the more deprived area, ie Ashington, I don’t think using the reopening to serve Morpeth from Bedlington was ever on the council’s radar. IIRC it was never mentioned in any of the early consultation documents I read.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2025 ==

How might that work? An extension of the Morpeth stopper? (Which might be a sensible thing to do anyway - and perhaps a cut-off would allow that service to increase in frequency too)

It can’t increase frequency unless this theoretical cutoff runs all the way into Newcastle, ie provides four tracking through Killingworth, Benton, Heaton etc. As I noted earlier, rejoining the ECML at Killingworth doesn’t provide for any extra capacity south of Killingworth or Benton Jn.

 

[Brubulus]

So hardly a decisive victory for HS2. Which is probably why London-Edinburgh times aren't even listed on the old HS2 Phase 2A journey time charts like this one I found.


All of HS2 and its associated works are incredibly expensive.
Before cancellation even HS2 admitted that Phase 2A was expected to cost ~£7bn, who knows what the actual outturn would be.

I don't see any plausible route for the project to be ressurected in any real form.
The delays and admissions of overspend keep coming.

The project is still being actively poisoned politically.


Well yes indeed, even with no further money spent.
Assuming the 67 minutes to Manchester, London to York via Manchester would be at about 2hr10 post TPRU.

Still slower than the fastest york trains, but still potentially interesting from a capacity perspective.


At that point, Manchester-Leeds-York becomes a potential ECML cutoff.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==


Which is not really that many considering we probably need at least 30 departures a day to be really attractive to customers.

Any train on such a low traffic density route will be dependent on intermediate passengers to make the economics work.

I must admit am very skeptical of that, considering that 1.7 million passengers on the 1100 seats of a 400m HS2 formation (as projected for Scottish services) would require only 4 trains a day. Half hourly is more like 30.
Traffic could double and you still aren't looking at very high occupancy at all without a huge brace of intermediate passengers.


Well the London-Edinburgh usefulness of HS2 was already kind of crippled by the decision to detahc Golborne, long before the final cancellation of Phase 2A.

Well yes, but the point is that this low traffic density segment is much shorter on the ECML side.
It's 250km through what amounts to a desert on the WCML (Lancaster to Edinburgh, which is probably optimistic)
It's more like 175km on the East Coast.


Well, once you abandon any notion of 360kph running, a high speed line can stop rather frequently and still absolutely crush a conventional railway.

If we're looking at 15 years time, and assuming annual market growth of 2.5 percent and restrictions on domestic flights, the London-Scotland rail market could reach 5 million annual passengers. Let's also remember they're not going to be evenly spread, in both time of day, time of week and time of year, meaning that load factors will usually be nowhere near 100%.

With Phase 1 alone, a Glasgow/Edinburgh fast can be run at 1tph. That effectively guarantees 500+fast seats and hour to Edinburgh. Once Phase 2 is done, which will happen eventually once Phase 1 is done, though most of us will be retired/dead, 2tph fast to Edinburgh can happen.

Once HS2 is built to Golborne, and most of us are dead, we can consider an Oxenholme-Penrith cut off that can save 13 minutes on London, Midlands and Manchester-Scotland journeys, potentially bringing London-Scotland journey times below 200 minutes. Or 40 mins faster than Flying Scotsman. (HS2 phase 1 cuts 3 mins from that, while HS2 phase 2 to Golborne cuts around 20-24 minutes.

A few minutes could be saved on Edinburgh by building a bypass of Carstairs and upgrading Carstairs-Edinburgh. If one was properly ambitious, this could be combined with a cutoff to the South, from Beattock but the hostile topography would likely make this expensive, though the viability of these cutoffs rests on using more standardised and less sympathetic construction. There's less MPs to object in Cumbria and Dumfries, and South Lanarkshire is mostly suburban so that should be less of an issue politically.

 

[A S Leib]

which already limits the Ashington service to 2 tph.

Not the best solution, but would there be anything physically preventing 3 or 4 tph running between Ashington and Northumberland Park with only 2 continuing to Newcastle Central?

 

[Brubulus]

Not the best solution, but would there be anything physically preventing 3 or 4 tph running between Ashington and Northumberland Park with only 2 continuing to Newcastle Central?

From just after Newsham to just before Benton Junction there is single track, which limits capacity to 2tph.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not the best solution, but would there be anything physically preventing 3 or 4 tph running between Ashington and Northumberland Park with only 2 continuing to Newcastle Central?

Single track section through Northumberland Park, the timings needed and signalling (and freight paths) are believed not to allow it. It was suggested a few weeks ago in the main Northumberland line thread, discussion therein suggested it’s not feasible.

 

[HSTEd]

If we're looking at 15 years time, and assuming annual market growth of 2.5 percent and restrictions on domestic flights, the London-Scotland rail market could reach 5 million annual passengers. Let's also remember they're not going to be evenly spread, in both time of day, time of week and time of year, meaning that load factors will usually be nowhere near 100%.

Compound growth of that level for 15 years in the face of a plateaued Scottish population sounds.... very optimistic.
I also think there is little chance of significant restrictions on domestic flights, it is politically far too toxic, which is why we have a political drive towards airport expansion.

Once HS2 is built to Golborne, and most of us are dead, we can consider an Oxenholme-Penrith cut off that can save 13 minutes on London, Midlands and Manchester-Scotland journeys, potentially bringing London-Scotland journey times below 200 minutes. Or 40 mins faster than Flying Scotsman. (HS2 phase 1 cuts 3 mins from that, while HS2 phase 2 to Golborne cuts around 20-24 minutes.

A few minutes could be saved on Edinburgh by building a bypass of Carstairs and upgrading Carstairs-Edinburgh. If one was properly ambitious, this could be combined with a cutoff to the South, from Beattock but the hostile topography would likely make this expensive, though the viability of these cutoffs rests on using more standardised and less sympathetic construction. There's less MPs to object in Cumbria and Dumfries, and South Lanarkshire is mostly suburban so that should be less of an issue politically.

Track from Manchester AIrport to Golborne, Oxenholme to Penrith in tunnel (no plausible fast surface route) and a line from Beattock to north of Carstairs is going to add up to an awful lot of track. Even in stages it would cost a phenomenal amount of money.

That adds up to the same length, more or less as a high speed line from the north side of newcastle to edinburgh via Cottonshopeburnfoot. That corridor has a gap in the Northumberland national park that would reduce the amount of tunneling required.
That would cut something like an hour off the Scotsman.

However, I think there will be a high speed line from Manchester to east of Leeds long before the Golborne link, which was axed even before the rest of HS2 Phase 2b.
At which point going from east of Leeds to Newcastle is going to have far superior business case than trying to cross the desert.

Going towards Leeds from Manchester achieves far more economically than going to Golborne, so it will likely happen first. Once you get to Leeds then going to Newcastle is likely going to achieve more than going to Golborne, so it will likely happen first etc etc etc.

Incrementalism favours the east coast because there are more people to benefit from each stage.

 

[Ploughman]

I recall mention of a York Bypass.
Running from the Colton area then paralleling the York ring road to the west side of the road then bridging the Ouse and rejoining the ECML between Tollerton and Beningbrough.

 

[AlastairFraser]

How might that work? An extension of the Morpeth stopper? (Which might be a sensible thing to do anyway - and perhaps a cut-off would allow that service to increase in frequency too)

Running Ashington services as an extension of the Metro twice an hour in the gap between the heavy rail services, and any travellers wanting central Newcastle changing onto the heavy rail services at Northumberland Park/Newsham/Bedlington.

I suspect the point was they wanted to provide the through trains for the more deprived area, ie Ashington, I don’t think using the reopening to serve Morpeth from Bedlington was ever on the council’s radar. IIRC it was never mentioned in any of the early consultation documents I read.

With additional Metro services and the heavy rail Northumberland Line diverted to Morpeth via Bedlington (provided there is sufficient capacity), it would provide extra connectivity between Morpeth (which you correctly imply is more prosperous) and other densely populated parts of South East Northumberland, as well as into central Newcastle.

 

[zwk500]

Running Ashington services as an extension of the Metro twice an hour in the gap between the heavy rail services, and any travellers wanting central Newcastle changing onto the heavy rail services at Northumberland Park/Newsham/Bedlington.

With additional Metro services and the heavy rail Northumberland Line diverted to Morpeth via Bedlington (provided there is sufficient capacity), it would provide extra connectivity between Morpeth (which you correctly imply is more prosperous) and other densely populated parts of South East Northumberland, as well as into central Newcastle.

Mixing metro with commuters and freight is not the best idea in the world (although certainly not impossible, as the other end of the Metro proves). Also to run it as part of the metro either requires somebody losing out on some services or having to procure additional metro vehicles, which has *just* been done and they don't have batteries*, so then the 1.5KV DC vs 25KV AC debate rears up again.

A clean Cramlington-Widdrington Morpeth cutoff is a nice easy solution that has minimal impact on local services other than releasing pressure on clearing the mainline at Morpeth. Given barely any LNER stop at Morpeth anyway, and Lumo need extraction, continuing the current pattern of interchanging at Newcastle Central and Lumo can use the historic line is absolutely fine.

I recall mention of a York Bypass.
Running from the Colton area then paralleling the York ring road to the west side of the road then bridging the Ouse and rejoining the ECML between Tollerton and Beningbrough.

Isn't this what HS2 from Leeds was essentially going to do? I'm not sure the loss of connectivity at York makes much sense for trains coming from Doncaster, but it could make a lot of sense if trains were running from HS2 into Leeds and then onto the NE/Scotland.

(*) - Edit to add - have just been reading up and it appears they do have batteries, but the wikipedia entry isn't particularly clear what capacity has been installed.

 

[Zomboid]

Running Ashington services as an extension of the Metro twice an hour in the gap between the heavy rail services, and any travellers wanting central Newcastle changing onto the heavy rail services at Northumberland Park/Newsham/Bedlington

What's to say that 2tph isn't enough for the Ashington line though? It's a pretty decent service level for a route like that, and there's always the option of longer trains and a nice interchange at Northumberland Park, Manors and Central for anyone wanting a metro destination.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[AlastairFraser]

What's to say that 2tph isn't enough for the Ashington line though? It's a pretty decent service level for a route like that, and there's always the option of longer trains and a nice interchange at Northumberland Park, Manors and Central for anyone wanting a metro destination.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

It's more about extra commuter capacity into Newcastle from Morpeth avoiding the most congested part of the ECML really

 

[zwk500]

It's more about extra commuter capacity into Newcastle from Morpeth avoiding the most congested part of the ECML really

Does it need it?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Mixing metro with commuters and freight is not the best idea in the world (although certainly not impossible, as the other end of the Metro proves). Also to run it as part of the metro either requires somebody losing out on some services or having to procure additional metro vehicles, which has *just* been done and they don't have batteries, so then the 1.5KV DC vs 25KV AC debate rears up again.

A clean Cramlington-Widdrington Morpeth cutoff is a nice easy solution that has minimal impact on local services other than releasing pressure on clearing the mainline at Morpeth. Given barely any LNER stop at Morpeth anyway, and Lumo need extraction, continuing the current pattern of interchanging at Newcastle Central and Lumo can use the historic line is absolutely fine.

True, although I think Cramlington is too far south for the southern bypass terminus. South west of the village of Hepscott makes more sense - you avoid having to thread your way out of Cramlington and dodge Plessey Woods Country Park.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2025 ==

Does it need it?

yes IMHO

 

[stevieinselby]

To deal with local concerns about losing long-distance connectivity, you could build a Morpeth Parkway station near the southern junction of the new line where some services could stop.

Unless you were planning to sever the northern connection out of Morpeth completely, this would be pointless. The reason for bypassing Morpeth is to avoid fast trains having to slow down to 50mph for the curve. For trains that are calling at Morpeth anyway, the impact of a 50mph curve that is adjacent to a 0mph station stop is negligible if not non-existent, so those trains would continue to use the old line regardless.

Isn't this what HS2 from Leeds was essentially going to do? I'm not sure the loss of connectivity at York makes much sense for trains coming from Doncaster, but it could make a lot of sense if trains were running from HS2 into Leeds and then onto the NE/Scotland.

HS2 was never planned to do anything north of Colton on the ECML. There would have been one branch running from the south into Leeds, and one branch joining the ECML somewhere near Colton, and then trains running to York and Newcastle would be on the classic lines from there north, there was no York by-pass planned.