Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[HowardGWR]

You'd be surprised the impact 10-15 mins journey time reduction on cross border journey times could make.

Fag packet numbers:

Total mode share at the moment is around 25% rail, 75% air.

Air passengers Glasgow/Edinburgh - London is around 7million.

So each 1% gained of the air market is 100,000 new passengers.

Predicted post HS2 time to Ed/Glasgow is 3 hours 40 minutes.

Studies show this equates to a likely mode share of around 35%.
http://www.silverrailtech.com/blog/when-do-people-switch-train-over-flying-35hrs

Getting the time down to 3.30 or better would increase market share to 50%.

So you're looking at 1-1.5m extra passengers to rail. Basically each minute you save on journeys between 4 and 3 hours will give you very big market share benefits.

I am afraid your calculations don't add up, at least with the figures you have quoted. For instance 1% of 7 million is not 100,000.

You say rail is 25% of the market. That makes total market somewhat under 10 million, because you stated air was 7m at 75%. (I am assuming you are not taking road into account).

So rail is roughly about 2 1/2 million.

Now using these data, I think you need to look at your concluding calculations again.

 

[Altnabreac]

I am afraid your calculations don't add up, at least with the figures you have quoted. For instance 1% of 7 million is not 100,000.

You say rail is 25% of the market. That makes total market somewhat under 10 million, because you stated air was 7m at 75%. (I am assuming you are not taking road into account).

So rail is roughly about 2 1/2 million.

Now using these data, I think you need to look at your concluding calculations again.

I think you're confused as you're agreeing with my calculations..

Total air /rail market is 10m or so. 1% of that is 100,000.

So if rail gained an additional 15% share of the total market that would be 1.5m extra journeys.

As I say these are fag packet numbers but the general point is that each minute below 4 hours really reaps big rewards in gaining market share from Air.

 

[clc]

You'd be surprised the impact 10-15 mins journey time reduction on cross border journey times could make.

Fag packet numbers:

Total mode share at the moment is around 25% rail, 75% air.

Air passengers Glasgow/Edinburgh - London is around 7million.

So each 1% gained of the air market is 100,000 new passengers.

Predicted post HS2 time to Ed/Glasgow is 3 hours 40 minutes.

Studies show this equates to a likely mode share of around 35%.
http://www.silverrailtech.com/blog/when-do-people-switch-train-over-flying-35hrs

Getting the time down to 3.30 or better would increase market share to 50%.

So you're looking at 1-1.5m extra passengers to rail. Basically each minute you save on journeys between 4 and 3 hours will give you very big market share benefits.

I've been looking at this Jacobs report on Glasgow-Edinburgh rail from 2007 which gives an idea of potential costs and benefits of different options: http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/Edinburgh-Glasgow-Final-Report-Oct07.pdf

Package C3 scope looks like EGIP as currently proposed (both phases). The Jacobs' figures are:
Capital costs of £500 million to £1 billion.
Present Value of Benefits £600 million to £800 million.
BCR of 1.1

Package G is a brand new HSR line between Glasgow - Edinburgh:
Capital costs of over £7 billion.
Present Value of Benefits £1 billion to £1.5 billion.
BCR of 0.3.

Package G scope is different to current HSR plans, it doesn't include a link to the WCML, so it's not a like for like comparison with current plans but the G2E journey time ( 27 minutes) is similar so the benefits in respect of G2E journeys should be similar you would think. The £7 billion capital cost can be disregarded as it includes new city centre stations.

So taking the highest 2007 estimates from Jacobs:
Benefits (£m):
EGIP (2007) - £800 (Jacobs)
EGIP (2014) - £1,505 (Business Case)
G2E HSR (2007) - £1,500 (Jacobs)
G2E HSR (2014) - ?

Im not sure why there would be such a large difference between Jacobs estimate of benefits for EGIP and that given in the business case. Hopefully the benefits for G2E HSR will also be significantly higher than Jacobs estimated, sufficient to cover the capital costs of £2-2.5 billion.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I've been looking at this Jacobs report on Glasgow-Edinburgh rail from 2007 which gives an idea of potential costs and benefits of different options: http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/Edinburgh-Glasgow-Final-Report-Oct07.pdf

Package C3 scope looks like EGIP as currently proposed (both phases). The Jacobs' figures are:
Capital costs of £500 million to £1 billion.
Present Value of Benefits £600 million to £800 million.
BCR of 1.1

Package G is a brand new HSR line between Glasgow - Edinburgh:
Capital costs of over £7 billion.
Present Value of Benefits £1 billion to £1.5 billion.
BCR of 0.3.

Package G scope is different to current HSR plans, it doesn't include a link to the WCML, so it's not a like for like comparison with current plans but the G2E journey time ( 27 minutes) is similar so the benefits in respect of G2E journeys should be similar you would think. The £7 billion capital cost can be disregarded as it includes new city centre stations.

So taking the highest 2007 estimates from Jacobs:
Benefits (£m):
EGIP (2007) - £800 (Jacobs)
EGIP (2014) - £1,505 (Business Case)
G2E HSR (2007) - £1,500 (Jacobs)
G2E HSR (2014) - ?

Im not sure why there would be such a large difference between Jacobs estimate of benefits for EGIP and that given in the business case. Hopefully the benefits for G2E HSR will also be significantly higher than Jacobs estimated, sufficient to cover the capital costs of £2-2.5 billion.

Extending HS2 into Edinburgh city centre (even just Haymarket) is likely to cost several billion alone as it would be like Manchester, where the only real option is a bored tunnel route from the outskirts to the city centre station. A station at Glasgow Central has the advantage of an avenue of desolation along the M74/WCML along which there would be no problems building a surface or cut-and-cover HSR route.

 

[clc]

Extending HS2 into Edinburgh city centre (even just Haymarket) is likely to cost several billion alone as it would be like Manchester, where the only real option is a bored tunnel route from the outskirts to the city centre station. A station at Glasgow Central has the advantage of an avenue of desolation along the M74/WCML along which there would be no problems building a surface or cut-and-cover HSR route.

Indeed, I was just referring to the current Scottish HSR plans and wondered what the monetised benefits of these plans might amount to and whether they'd be sufficient to cover the £2-£2.5 billion capital cost.

 

[Altnabreac]

I've been looking at this Jacobs report on Glasgow-Edinburgh rail from 2007 which gives an idea of potential costs and benefits of different options: http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/Edinburgh-Glasgow-Final-Report-Oct07.pdf

Package C3 scope looks like EGIP as currently proposed (both phases). The Jacobs' figures are:
Capital costs of £500 million to £1 billion.
Present Value of Benefits £600 million to £800 million.
BCR of 1.1

Package G is a brand new HSR line between Glasgow - Edinburgh:
Capital costs of over £7 billion.
Present Value of Benefits £1 billion to £1.5 billion.
BCR of 0.3.

Package G scope is different to current HSR plans, it doesn't include a link to the WCML, so it's not a like for like comparison with current plans but the G2E journey time ( 27 minutes) is similar so the benefits in respect of G2E journeys should be similar you would think. The £7 billion capital cost can be disregarded as it includes new city centre stations.

So taking the highest 2007 estimates from Jacobs:
Benefits (£m):
EGIP (2007) - £800 (Jacobs)
EGIP (2014) - £1,505 (Business Case)
G2E HSR (2007) - £1,500 (Jacobs)
G2E HSR (2014) - ?

Im not sure why there would be such a large difference between Jacobs estimate of benefits for EGIP and that given in the business case. Hopefully the benefits for G2E HSR will also be significantly higher than Jacobs estimated, sufficient to cover the capital costs of £2-2.5 billion.

I suspect the increased BCR is due to faster than expected passenger growth. This means the crowding relief and capacity increase starts to pay off sooner and better.

For Edinburgh - Glasgow the journey time improvements (from EGIP or HSR) are only ever going to give a small benefit particularly as the journey is already faster than the road equivalent. The BCR is always going to be driven by demand requiring extra capacity relief.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for HSR I suspect the benefits for the Edinburgh - Glasgow section will be slightly higher but similar to EGIP phase 2 (as HSR provides 4 fast trains per hour compared with 2 for EGIP phase 2 and they should be slightly quicker too.

The big difference from 2007 is the southern link. Without HS2 a journey time improvement from 4.30 to 4.15 didn't provide a huge market share increase (and wouldn't have helped Edinburgh customes anyway).

Once HS2 does the hard work getting the time below 4 hours each extra minute saved generates a much greater benefit.

 

[clc]

I suspect the increased BCR is due to faster than expected passenger growth. This means the crowding relief and capacity increase starts to pay off sooner and better.

For Edinburgh - Glasgow the journey time improvements (from EGIP or HSR) are only ever going to give a small benefit particularly as the journey is already faster than the road equivalent. The BCR is always going to be driven by demand requiring extra capacity relief.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for HSR I suspect the benefits for the Edinburgh - Glasgow section will be slightly higher but similar to EGIP phase 2 (as HSR provides 4 fast trains per hour compared with 2 for EGIP phase 2 and they should be slightly quicker too.

The big difference from 2007 is the southern link. Without HS2 a journey time improvement from 4.30 to 4.15 didn't provide a huge market share increase (and wouldn't have helped Edinburgh customes anyway).

Once HS2 does the hard work getting the time below 4 hours each extra minute saved generates a much greater benefit.

The EGIP business case, when considering the impact of HSR on EGIP, assumes the G2E HSR line will have 3tph and a 30 minute journey time, so perhaps thats an indication of the likely G2E HSR service. You'd also have savings in respect of the Central-Queen St transfer time - would that be included in a BCR calculation?

 

[Altnabreac]

The EGIP business case, when considering the impact of HSR on EGIP, assumes the G2E HSR line will have 3tph and a 30 minute journey time, so perhaps thats an indication of the likely G2E HSR service. You'd also have savings in respect of the Central-Queen St transfer time - would that be included in a BCR calculation?

The modelling software should take into account journeys like Paisley - Edinburgh and apply an additional 25 minute time benefit to them from the reduced interchange time at Central (15 mins vs 40 to change stations).

Not sure how well it can account for modal shift from those who just would drive all the way rather than walk across Glasgow.

 

[clc]

The modelling software should take into account journeys like Paisley - Edinburgh and apply an additional 25 minute time benefit to them from the reduced interchange time at Central (15 mins vs 40 to change stations).

Not sure how well it can account for modal shift from those who just would drive all the way rather than walk across Glasgow.

Interesting. I imagine there would also be new demand due to an increase in commuting between the cities as current journey times from south of the clyde to Edinburgh are slashed - Paisley to Edinburgh in under an hour for example compared to around 1h 30m at present.

You might be interested in what Keith Brown stated in Parliament about the benefits from time savings: "The establishment of the high-speed link between Edinburgh and Glasgow will take the bulk of the direct services between those two cities. We will therefore free up capacity elsewhere, plus we will give the option to those who are most concerned with fast journey times. There is a figure, which I cannot bring to mind just now, that shows the economic benefit of every minute that is taken off journey times, and the benefit is pretty huge—it is surprisingly large. If the high-speed link takes the direct journeys, we can get the best possible journey times but also free up capacity elsewhere"

Col 1389: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7833&mode=pdf

Brown said he couldn't remember the actual figure but several years ago a figure of £60m for each minute saved was in the public domain in the context of EGIP: http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/ftopic470-0-asc-10.php

 

[Altnabreac]

Interesting. I imagine there would also be new demand due to an increase in commuting between the cities as current journey times from south of the clyde to Edinburgh are slashed - Paisley to Edinburgh in under an hour for example compared to around 1h 30m at present.

You might be interested in what Keith Brown stated in Parliament about the benefits from time savings: "The establishment of the high-speed link between Edinburgh and Glasgow will take the bulk of the direct services between those two cities. We will therefore free up capacity elsewhere, plus we will give the option to those who are most concerned with fast journey times. There is a figure, which I cannot bring to mind just now, that shows the economic benefit of every minute that is taken off journey times, and the benefit is pretty huge—it is surprisingly large. If the high-speed link takes the direct journeys, we can get the best possible journey times but also free up capacity elsewhere"

Col 1389: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7833&mode=pdf

Brown said he couldn't remember the actual figure but several years ago a figure of £60m for each minute saved was in the public domain in the context of EGIP: http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/ftopic470-0-asc-10.php

Sounds about right. I guess the point for HSR is that even at £60m per minute that is only going to generate £600-900m of benefits so to get a positive business case you'll need to look at capacity relief and cross border benefits as well.

 

[snowball]

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-on-104m-Queen-Street-redevelopment-2001.aspx

Network Rail has today (Tuesday, February 25) launched a public consultation to hear passengers’ views on the proposed £104m transformation of Glasgow Queen Street station.

The company has unveiled new designs for how the station will look as it begins an initial three-month long process to gather passenger and public views on the project.

Scotland’s third busiest station with 20m passengers a year, Glasgow Queen Street needs to expand to meet predicted growth to 28m passengers by 2030 and to accommodate the longer trains that will be running on key routes in the future.

As well as overhauling Queen Street’s rail infrastructure and operational capabilities, the redevelopment will transform passenger facilities and improve how the station interacts with the surrounding city.

The project is part of the £650m Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP), which will deliver a rolling programme of electrification across the Central Belt over the next five years and beyond.

 

[cf111]

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-on-104m-Queen-Street-redevelopment-2001.aspx

Must admit, that external view looks really quite nice.

 

[adrock1976]

With hindsight, it was probably a huge mistake at the time to close down the old Caledonian Railway Buchanan Street station nearby, as it was a larger station compared to the present day North British Railway Queen Street station.

The former site of Buchanan Street station is now occupied by Glasgow Caledonian University (the former polytechnic) and the bus station, making it extremely unlikely for it to be reopened.

Had the former Buchanan Street station not closed down, my thoughts are that it might have been a terminus for high speed trains to run to from the rest of the UK.

In peace

Adam

 

[edwin_m]

Queen Street does at least have the feel of being in the city centre. The walk out to Buchanan House (also on the former Buchanan Street station site) has the feel of going out into the wilds, as well as being something of a climb. Buchanan Street itself of course ends some distance before the station site.

 

[matchmaker]

Queen Street does at least have the feel of being in the city centre. The walk out to Buchanan House (also on the former Buchanan Street station site) has the feel of going out into the wilds, as well as being something of a climb. Buchanan Street itself of course ends some distance before the station site.

Not to mention that Buchanan Street Station was a dump! It also had less platforms than Queen Street (5).

 

[clc]

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-on-104m-Queen-Street-redevelopment-2001.aspx

Thinking about Glasgow's terminal capacity issues; with capacity at Queen St set to increase from 20m to 28m would this negate the need for a new city centre station/north-south deep tunnel? The tunnel in particular would result in a lot of redundancy at QS so with all this investment at QS can we conclude that the tunnel has been ruled out?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Thinking about Glasgow's terminal capacity issues; with capacity at Queen St set to increase from 20m to 28m would this negate the need for a new city centre station/north-south deep tunnel? The tunnel in particular would result in a lot of redundancy at QS so with all this investment at QS can we conclude that the tunnel has been ruled out?

Capacity at Queen Street is always going to be limited by the number of trains that can get in and out of Cowlairs tunnel though. The trains can be extended to 8x23m but it still isn't possible to run that many additional services even if the lines further out could cope. A tunnel would be most useful for the more local services such as Anniesland, Croy or Cumbernauld but there would still be services from further afield that need to terminate here, so the investment made now isn't going to be wasted. Reducing the number of services needing to the high level station would do quite a bit of good in making all services more reliable. The tunnel has the issue of being an extremely expensive solution that would solve the capacity crisis for at least a generation, but its costs would have to be paid in only a few short years until whatever political establishment in charge of it is able to do very long-term borrowing.

 

[PaulLothian]

Thinking about Glasgow's terminal capacity issues; with capacity at Queen St set to increase from 20m to 28m would this negate the need for a new city centre station/north-south deep tunnel? The tunnel in particular would result in a lot of redundancy at QS so with all this investment at QS can we conclude that the tunnel has been ruled out?

I am not sure that a tunnel could ever be justified - a cost-benefits analysis would always turn out badly.

Apart from anything else, we are not talking about a simple twin-bore. New underground platforms would be needed at both Queen Street and Central, and given the obstructions to a shallow tunnel (two railway lines and a largish river), these would be deep and more complex to construct.

I would of course be delighted to be proved wrong!

 

[clc]

My understanding from what ive read on here (Altnabreac) was that a tunnel would handle all current Queen St High Level services apart from Aberdeen/Inverness and West Highland line trains. Maryhill, Edinburgh via Falkirk, Stirling, Falkirk Grahamston/Cumbernauld and any additional Croy services would all run through the tunnel. Central and Queen St would be too close together to justify two underground stations so there would be just one built, deep under Central.

Queen St HL would be fairly quiet if things panned out like that.

 

[PaulLothian]

Central and Queen St would be too close together to justify two underground stations so there would be just one built, deep under Central.

If built in the right place, it could connect from each end to Central and Queen Street.

 

[Altnabreac]

My understanding from what ive read on here (Altnabreac) was that a tunnel would handle all current Queen St High Level services apart from Aberdeen/Inverness and West Highland line trains. Maryhill, Edinburgh via Falkirk, Stirling, Falkirk Grahamston/Cumbernauld and any additional Croy services would all run through the tunnel. Central and Queen St would be too close together to justify two underground stations so there would be just one built, deep under Central.

Queen St HL would be fairly quiet if things panned out like that.

To clarify there aren't any current tunnel plans but that would be my best guess of what would happen. You certainly wouldn't have 2 stations at Queen St and Central. You might have a second station further east, especially if Glasgow Council's preferred site for a high speed rail terminus at High St was ever built.

 

[ianhr]

Would a cheaper solution be to build a tunnel from the east side platforms at Queen St to the ex Caledonian Railway route that went to Buchanan Street? The east and west side platforms could then be segregated and lengthened, and conflicting movements at the station throat reduced. All trains towards Cumbernauld and Stirling could then be routed from the east side platforms to the Caledonian route also reducing conflicting movements at Greenhill Jct. The west side platforms and Cowlairs tunnel would only be used for the Edinburgh via Falkirk and West Highland trains.
This would provide a large increase in capacity without expensive and disruptive construction work in the city centre, although it would obviously not provide the interconnectivity of a direct link from Glasgow Central.

 

[clc]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-delivery-plan/cp5-enhancements-delivery-plan.pdf

Page 141 confirms which projects are being considered for funding from the Scottish Network Improvement Fund in Control Period 5 including

Anniesland connection;
Charing Cross turnback;
Exhibition Centre turnback;
Edinburgh suburban electrification

Page 162 confirms:
2 x major bridge reconstructions on the Edinburgh Suburban Lines;
the planned electrification of the Edinburgh suburban lines would be early in CP5.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-delivery-plan/cp5-enhancements-delivery-plan.pdf
................................
Charing Cross turnback;
Exhibition Centre turnback;

What exactly is involved in a turnback - is it just a crossover or does there need to be a siding as well?

I can see how this could be done at Exhibition Centre but there doesn't seem to be enough room at Charing Cross to do much with[out*] some major engineering.

 

[Altnabreac]

What exactly is involved in a turnback - is it just a crossover or does there need to be a siding as well?

I can see how this could be done at Exhibition Centre but there doesn't seem to be enough room at Charing Cross to do much with some major engineering.

I haven't seen plans for either of these but my vague understanding is that both involve a siding somewhere west of the named station but east of Partick rather than reversing at the stations themselves.

 

[NotATrainspott]

What exactly is involved in a turnback - is it just a crossover or does there need to be a siding as well?

I can see how this could be done at Exhibition Centre but there doesn't seem to be enough room at Charing Cross to do much with some major engineering.

A turnback would involve trains which had just ended passenger service at a station going into a siding to wait for their return path, where the driver would change ends and when allowed would pull out and crossover back onto the right direction line. Such a crossover is present for the Singer line at Dalmuir, while a terminating platform is available for the Yoker line. Because of the time needed to change ends and the need to wait for the return passenger service path, which can result in the trains waiting for tens of minutes, it is not feasible to leave them on the running lines and they must go onto a siding.

Exhibition Centre already has a turnback siding but it is parallel to the westbound platform, so trains come out of service at Anderston to use it which is not ideal when the station serves the SECC and the Hydro. It might be possible to convert this to a third platform, which then avoids the issue that the west and eastbound lines west of the station are very far away from one another and they come to a grade-separated junction with the North Clyde lines.

The Charing Cross turnback would not be built in the tunnels or near the station; it is called that because that is where the passenger services would end. The physical siding and crossover would be further to the west on the surface, where there is some land available.

The advantage of the Charing Cross turnback in particular is that services will for the large part still be able to run even if the double-track section between Hyndland East and Finneston were to come to a grinding halt. It is possible for trains from the west to turn back or loop around using the connecting line to the west of Jordanhill between the Singer and Yoker lines but there isn't any such location on the east until Bellgrove, resulting in there being no services able to run into Charing Cross, Queen St LL or High Street. The two-track Hyndland-Partick section is the main capacity constraint on the entire North Clyde/Argyll Line network as it is not possible to run any more trains through the section than there are today as Jordanhill East is a flat junction. With the turnback, additional services on the line to Springburn or to Edinburgh via Airdrie-Bathgate are possible which might be extremely useful during the EGIP electrification work blockades on the main E&G line via Falkirk High.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Thanks for these answers.

 

[clc]

.

.. The two-track Hyndland-Partick section is the main capacity constraint on the entire North Clyde/Argyll Line network as it is not possible to run any more trains through the section than there are today as Jordanhill East is a flat junction..

Does that mean the electric Whifflet services can't be diverted to the Argyle line until one of the turnbacks is built? Or could they use the siding at Exhibition Centre?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Does that mean the electric Whifflet services can't be diverted to the Argyle line until one of the turnbacks is built? Or could they use the siding at Exhibition Centre?

As the turnback adjacent to Exhibition Centre does already exist the services will be able to run into Central LL just fine. However, as they won't be able to stop at Exhibition Centre itself it is not ideal as this is an even more important stop now since the Hydro has opened.

 

[clc]

As the turnback adjacent to Exhibition Centre does already exist the services will be able to run into Central LL just fine. However, as they won't be able to stop at Exhibition Centre itself it is not ideal as this is an even more important stop now since the Hydro has opened.

So the basis for the Exhibition Centre turnback, whether it takes the form of a platform on the existing siding or a new siding to the west of the station, is to allow more trains to serve Exhibition Centre specifically. As you say, with the new 12000 seater Hydro doing great business it should be worth the investment.