Restarting HS2a

[Krokodil]

Penrith and Oxenholme each have 90k passengers a year to London. That’s more than Carlisle.

The Edinburgh and Glasgow services need to split somewhere, and that somewhere is either going to be Carstairs or Carlisle - unlike Preston (a significant hub in its own right) the Carlisle stop would mostly exist for operational reasons. Penrith has no such operational purpose, and the double sets would be too long to call. Passengers will simply have to change at Preston onto one of the services from Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester to get to Penrith. Their loss but Glasgow's gain.

 

[MatthewHutton]

The Edinburgh and Glasgow services need to split somewhere, and that somewhere is either going to be Carstairs or Carlisle - unlike Preston (a significant hub in its own right) the Carlisle stop would mostly exist for operational reasons. Penrith has no such operational purpose, and the double sets would be too long to call. Passengers will simply have to change at Preston onto one of the services from Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester to get to Penrith. Their loss but Glasgow's gain.

The railway are not going to make it so people have to change trains to places that are currently served directly when there are that many customers.

 

[Noddy]

My maths says that Euston to Edinburgh via Newcastle would be 3:45, compared with 3:40 via Carlisle. Obviously the odd cut off would close the difference but there would be no benefit to Glasgow. Via Carlisle benefits both equally. I am in favour of running HS2 trains beyond Newcastle to Edinburgh, but as a supplement for the via Carlisle ones, not as a substitute.

My maths says it would be 3.46 with a two minute stop at Newcastle! Totally agree with this.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the full network would mean 18tph on HS2 south of Birmingham Interchange, which probably doesn't leave a lot of room for future growth. Veering off topic long term there should be a second north-south line further east. What route that would take is probably less certain, there are a few options I've thought of. Probably connect with HS2 east either near East Midlands Hub or Sheffield.

I believe 18tph was indeed the original plan for HS2 South of Birmingham Interchange. However that predated cutting back the number of platforms being built at Euston. I'm not sure whether HS2 still has capacity for 18tph terminating at Euston that now there are fewer platforms being built there?

 

[Krokodil]

The railway are not going to make it so people have to change trains to places that are currently served directly.

Those sorts of changes happen all the time. The Liverpool to Edinburgh direct service was split at Newcastle a few years back. Why is Penrith more deserving of a direct London service than Shrewsbury, despite the latter flow having more passengers?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Why is Penrith more deserving of a direct London service than Shrewsbury, despite the latter flow having more passengers?

Shrewsbury hasn’t had a long history of direct service though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Those sorts of changes happen all the time. The Liverpool to Edinburgh direct service was split at Newcastle a few years back. Why is Penrith more deserving of a direct London service than Shrewsbury, despite the latter flow having more passengers?

It's not more deserving - it's more that Penrith happens to be in a location where it's easy for direct London trains to stop, and generates sufficient passengers to justify doing that. Shrewsbury unfortunately is not on the direct route from London to anywhere else, and isn't even located on any line to London that would enable reasonable journey times. Hence why it has no direct trains, although in principle it would probably be desirable for it to have some.

 

[MatthewHutton]

.

 

[Krokodil]

It's not more deserving - it's more that Penrith happens to be in a location where it's easy for direct London trains to stop, and generates sufficient passengers to justify doing that.

So it's mostly down to operational convenience? Well it would end up getting rather operationally inconvenient to stop 400m trains full of Scotland-bound passengers at Penrith to offload a handful off passengers. Swapping onto a Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham service at Preston is a mild nuisance.

Plenty of stations in the UK have lost direct services to a given destination for one reason or another.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Plenty of stations in the UK have lost direct services to a given destination for one reason or another.

Not to London.

And you still have to work out how the timetable works to allow these fast services through as well as slower services stopping at these intermediate stops. Plus allowing freight.

I mean look - an hourly fast service perhaps splitting in two - plus an hourly stopping service calling at the intermediate stops is probably plausible to achieve if the freight goes on settle-Carlisle and wouldn’t lead to grossly excessive capacity to Edinburgh/Glasgow/Preston - especially with an intermediate stop at Birmingham interchange as well.

 

[HSTEd]

That is never going to be economically viable.

The East Coast route does have the advantage of getting much further north before it runs into functional wilderness.

If HS2 ever reaches Manchester, it will have gone as far north as it is worth going on the west coast. There is no major urban area between Preston and Glasgow metro.

Given the money being spent or mooted for transpennine speed upgrades, it wouldn't take that much to make the East Coast route preferable over the existing railway in any case.

 

[AlexSJW]

If you're suggesting that the Eastern Leg be reinstated, there'll be no objection from me.

Greengauge wrote:
Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle-London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2.

The east coast cities have shorter routes to London. Leeds is only 169 miles from London. All is needed is make the MML and ECML all 140mph.
The fastest train record for a journey between London and Edinburgh was in the ECML 35 years ago - 3 hours and 29 minutes. This record was established on 26 September 1991 by an InterCity 225 (Class 91). The average speed was approximately ~95.02 mph. Upgraded to 140mph. that speed will be comprehensively beaten.

New expensive track is not needed.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Greengauge wrote:
Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle-London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2.

The east coast cities have shorter routes to London. Leeds is only 169 miles from London. All is needed is make the MML and ECML all 140mph.
The fastest train record for a journey between London and Edinburgh was in the ECML 35 years ago - 3 hours and 29 minutes. This record was established on 26 September 1991 by an InterCity 225 (Class 91). The average speed was approximately ~95.02 mph. Upgraded to 140mph. that speed will be comprehensively beaten.

New expensive track is not needed.

That may be true on paper, but the ECML was predicted to be full not long after the WCML would be full. The MML would be harder to upgrade and with the costs involved you might as well built an East Midlands high-speed line from London via Luton and Leicester then connecting to HS2 east at East Midlands Hub. Trains could be lengthened as a short term capacity increase but would require platform extensions. I'm surprised that Virgin's proposal from the early 2000s hasn't been revisited. Although that did nothing for the ECML south of Peterborough and the Welwyn bottleneck, which would need to be bypassed. While I believe an eastern high-speed line parallel to HS2 will eventually be needed, HS2 east, for all its flaws, would've enabled faster London-Leeds and London-Newcastle with more capacity, although I don't know what the service pattern would've been north of York considering the Newcastle services were planned to run by 200m trains

 

[MatthewHutton]

If HS2 ever reaches Manchester, it will have gone as far north as it is worth going on the west coast. There is no major urban area between Preston and Glasgow metro.

And the terrain means the costs will be sky high.

 

[AlexSJW]

Longer trains solves a lot. MML can eventually take Leeds trains if upgraded between Sheff and Leeds, keeping them off the ECML, although I doubt they will. The east of the country has two lines - divide and rule. The NW is to get two, WCML and HS2 lines. Capacity will not an issue.

 

[Noddy]

The East Coast route does have the advantage of getting much further north before it runs into functional wilderness.

If HS2 ever reaches Manchester, it will have gone as far north as it is worth going on the west coast. There is no major urban area between Preston and Glasgow metro.

Given the money being spent or mooted for transpennine speed upgrades, it wouldn't take that much to make the East Coast route preferable over the existing railway in any case.

If/once HS2 reaches Manchester it is already quicker to Edinburgh than going via the eastern route to built all the way to Leeds as HS2 originally proposed. Once you’re at that point it’s then a decision on Glasgow/Edinburgh or Newcastle/Edinburgh. Now York/Durham/Newcastle/Edinburgh is clearly a bigger London market than Preston/Glasgow/Edinburgh but improvements between Newcastle-Leeds are only likely to achieve relatively marginal gains as the line speed is already high unless you do something major like by-pass York and/or Durham which would potentially negatively impact those markets that are fairly large markets. Once you are talking about upgrades/improvement north of Newcastle you are spending money to only benefit Edinburgh, not both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[MatthewHutton]

If/once HS2 reaches Manchester it is already quicker to Edinburgh than going via the eastern route to built all the way to Leeds as HS2 originally proposed. Once you’re at that point it’s then a decision on Glasgow/Edinburgh or Newcastle/Edinburgh. Now York/Durham/Newcastle/Edinburgh is clearly a bigger London market than Preston/Glasgow/Edinburgh but improvements between Newcastle-Leeds are only likely to achieve relatively marginal gains as the line speed is already high unless you do something major like by-pass York and/or Durham which would potentially negatively impact those markets that are fairly large markets. Once you are talking about upgrades/improvement north of Newcastle you are spending money to only benefit Edinburgh, not both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Only marginally quicker via the west coast. And maybe not at all assuming the 140mph upgrade has happened on the east.

And you are still dealing with a whole bunch of mountains on the west vs flatter terrain on the east.

Even just Golbourne would almost certainly need a station to actually happen.

 

[Noddy]

And the terrain means the costs will be sky high.

Most of the terrain between Golbourne and Carstairs is similar to an eastern route. There are two sections of big hills which stretch for maybe 40-50 miles. Out of 150+ miles.

The East Coast route does have the advantage of getting much further north before it runs into functional wilderness.

No one sensible is talking about a high speed north route of Golbourne/Leeds because it isn’t going to happen. Post phase 2 will be all about incremental upgrades to the existing lines with maybe short by-pass sections, achieving the best value for money.

 

[MatthewHutton]

No one sensible is talking about a high speed north route of Golbourne/Leeds because it isn’t going to happen. Post phase 2 will be all about incremental upgrades to the existing lines with maybe short by-pass sections, achieving the best value for money.

A base tunnel for 40 miles under those hills will cost more than a high speed line for 160 miles on the east coast.

 

[Noddy]

A base tunnel for 40 miles under those hills will cost more than a high speed line for 160 miles on the east coast.

Please read what I wrote.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Please read what I wrote.

So how much time savings do you think you can make with incremental upgrades north of Preston? And how does that compare to a high speed line on the east coast assuming our costs go back down to something similar to our friends elsewhere in the world?

And if they don’t go down then it’s implausible that even phase 2a will be built.

 

[3RDGEN]

Greengauge wrote:
Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle-London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2.

The east coast cities have shorter routes to London. Leeds is only 169 miles from London. All is needed is make the MML and ECML all 140mph.
The fastest train record for a journey between London and Edinburgh was in the ECML 35 years ago - 3 hours and 29 minutes. This record was established on 26 September 1991 by an InterCity 225 (Class 91). The average speed was approximately ~95.02 mph. Upgraded to 140mph. that speed will be comprehensively beaten.

New expensive track is not needed.

A lot of the ECML was cleared for 140mph for that record run and plenty more for above 125mph so without serious engineering your not cutting it by much more once you actually include station stops. New trains will accelerate quicker but the record run was a short formed 225 set anyway.

 

[MatthewHutton]

A lot of the ECML was cleared for 140mph for that record run and plenty more for above 125mph so without serious engineering your not cutting it by much more once you actually include station stops. New trains will accelerate quicker but the record run was a short formed 225 set anyway.

There’s only 2 stops now! So at 5 minutes a stop (given they are both big but the track is slow) that gets you 3h40. Or the same as HS2 with the Golbourne link

 

[Noddy]

So how much time savings do you think you can make with incremental upgrades north of Preston? And how does that compare to a high speed line on the east coast assuming our costs go back down to something similar to our friends elsewhere in the world?

And if they don’t go down then it’s implausible that even phase 2a will be built.

That’s the wrong question. The question is where do we spend whatever limited money we have to get the best value for money result.

You talk about upgrading the ECML to 140mph but neither of us know how much that will cost. How much time would that actually save between Leeds and Edinburgh? Neither of us really know but I’d question whether it would make it worthwhile sending trains that way instead of via an already built Golborne. And bear in mind even without Golborne the west route is close to parity with the east route.

 

[AlexSJW]

A lot of the ECML was cleared for 140mph for that record run and plenty more for above 125mph so without serious engineering your not cutting it by much more once you actually include station stops. New trains will accelerate quicker but the record run was a short formed 225 set anyway.

Cleared for 140mph if they could reach that. More bottlenecks than now were in situe then. If the train could do 140mph for all the ECML and 160mph on some long sections it will clearly exceed an average of 95.02 mph handsomely.

 

[HSTEd]

No one sensible is talking about a high speed north route of Golbourne/Leeds because it isn’t going to happen. Post phase 2 will be all about incremental upgrades to the existing lines with maybe short by-pass sections, achieving the best value for money.

HS2 proposed a route that got within a relative handful of kilometres of York after all.

Golborne has an outside chance of happening as part of NPR, but its not particularly attractive otherwise given how much extra track it needs.

Leeds will probably need serving, and from our present position the most likely route is probably Handsacre-Manchester-Leeds. With Meadowhall gone the Eastern Leg doesn't seem likely to be attractive, Chesterfield-LEeds is a long way just for Leeds traffic. Plus that means any money spent on NPR gets used for this too, and vice versa.

And once you've done all that, continuing to near York is probably the easiest way to get to Scotland quicker.

But this is rather peripheral to the topic at hand!

 

[TheGrew]

As a local (Newton-le-Willows), I felt Golbourne was a bit of a silly place to 'terminate' HS2. I always thought it made more sense to either have it join south of Warrington (which is frankly more prosperous than Wigan) or to bypass Wigan and join near where the line becomes 4 track south of Euxton Balshaw Lane.
On the current proposed alignment, I also see quite a lot of value in a Parkway station near where the line intersects the A580.

 

[Noddy]

HS2 proposed a route that got within a relative handful of kilometres of York after that.

Golborne has an outside chance of happening as part of NPR, but it’s not particularly attractive otherwise given how much extra track it needs.

Leeds will probably need serving, and from our present position the most likely route is probably Handsacre-Manchester-Leeds. And once you've done that, continuing to near York is probably the easiest way to get to Scotland quick.

Once you’ve got to just outside York (as you correctly point out) you’re still 5-10 minutes slower than via Golborne. And that’s to Edinburgh only, not ‘Scotland’! Obviously there may be investments you can make between York(ish) and Newcastle which would benefit Newcastle as well as Edinburgh so you may want to spend money there anyway but they need to bring at least 5-10 minutes of savings just bring than the east coast route to the same time as the west coast route. So hypothetically do you spend X amount of money (which is likely to be in short supply) saving those 5-10 minutes between York(ish) and Newcastle which only really benefits the Newcastle market, or do you spend the same X amount of money on WCML and benefit the Edinburgh+Glasgow(+Preston market if it’s spent improving Golborne-Preston). Obviously there are so many variables it’s impossible to answer without detailed analysis but the Edinburgh/Glasgow to London and Birmingham markets are always going to be best served via a western route, rather than the longer route via Berwick and Dunbar.

 

[Krokodil]

Not to London.

You state that with such confidence when I can think of two stations which have either lost direct London services entirely, or had them severely pruned in the last 18 months. I can also start listing a number of other towns which have lost direct London trains since privatisation.

The timetable was not engraved into a stone tablet and carried down Mount Sinai. It can change. The only reason that Intercity services call at Penrith at all is that there are no local services over Shap. The people who travel there from London are lucky to have benefitted from the fact that the most operationally convenient way to serve the station was to stop the London trains. If planners feel that the circumstances have changed (400m trains which cannot be accommodated, Edinburgh/Glasgow being a much bigger market, more frequent non-London services etc.) then they are quite within their rights to consider removing the stop from the London trains.

Greengauge wrote:
Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle-London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2.

The east coast cities have shorter routes to London. Leeds is only 169 miles from London. All is needed is make the MML and ECML all 140mph.
The fastest train record for a journey between London and Edinburgh was in the ECML 35 years ago - 3 hours and 29 minutes. This record was established on 26 September 1991 by an InterCity 225 (Class 91). The average speed was approximately ~95.02 mph. Upgraded to 140mph. that speed will be comprehensively beaten.

New expensive track is not needed.

That does absolutely nothing about capacity.

Only marginally quicker via the west coast. And maybe not at all assuming the 140mph upgrade has happened on the east.

How does Glasgow benefit from the ECML option?

 

[HSTEd]

Once you’ve got to just outside York (as you correctly point out) you’re still 5-10 minutes slower than via Golborne. And that’s to Edinburgh only, not ‘Scotland’! Obviously there may be investments you can make between York(ish) and Newcastle which would benefit Newcastle as well as Edinburgh so you may want to spend money there anyway but they need to bring at least 5-10 minutes of savings just bring than the east coast route to the same time as the west coast route. So hypothetically do you spend X amount of money (which is likely to be in short supply) saving those 5-10 minutes between York(ish) and Newcastle which only really benefits the Newcastle market, or do you spend the same X amount of money on WCML and benefit the Edinburgh+Glasgow(+Preston market if it’s spent improving Golborne-Preston). Obviously there are so many variables it’s impossible to answer without detailed analysis but the Edinburgh/Glasgow to London and Birmingham markets are always going to be best served via a western route, rather than the longer route via Berwick and Dunbar.

Well if Golborne doens't happen as part of NPR, that's 10-30km of track that would have to be built to get those time savings, otherwise the comparison is going to be via Crewe. Which I think probably loses you a few minutes at least?

10-30km track depending on what route NPR actually has happen.

10-30km of new track on the East Coast could get you some significant time savings after all.