There is no timescale, no budget and it will compete with four existing intercity rail routes. But building a high speed line allowing 140mph trains to travel direct between Glasgow and Edinburgh is not as batty as it sounds.
Announced with great aplomb on Monday by Nicola Sturgeon in her relatively new role as Infrastructure Secretary, the proposed route will, she says, be complete by 2024 – ahead of the first phase of the high speed railway planned to open between London and Birmingham by 2026.
It sounds bold and, bluntly, unaffordable, especially considering that the latest route between the cities only opened two years ago, thanks to completion of the £300 million Airdrie-Bathgate link. There’s already a bulging list of expensive infrastructure projects in the transport portfolio, such as the £3bn earmarked for dualling the A9 by 2025, over the next decade and a half so adding a few extra billion’s worth of projects doesn’t sound wise.
In fact, the Glasgow-Edinburgh high speed rail plan is the relatively easy part. Bear with me here.
It picks up on an idea that has been floating around in policy circles in and around Transport Scotland for years. Namely that, if you are building a high speed rail route from England to Scotland, you can get a new line between Glasgow and Edinburgh thrown in for relatively little extra cost.
Let’s assume, as many in the rail industry do, that the mostly likely route for a cross-border line would be a Y-shape heading north from Manchester before splitting along separate branch lines to Glasgow and Edinburgh – pretty similar to the existing West Coast Main Line in fact. In order to get the new Glasgow-Edinburgh line, you simply need to construct a short section of track linking both branch lines. Ta da.
None of this takes away the eye-wateringly difficult task of getting that cross-border route. Where, for example, do you put the 400m-long trains when they reach Glasgow and Edinburgh? There isn’t space in either Glasgow Central or Waverley stations at present so either new terminuses or major reconstruction of the existing stations would be required.
Oh, and the last estimate of the cost of extending a network north of Preston to Scotland’s two biggest cities, by Network Rail in 2009, was £13bn.
The interesting aspect of Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement this week was the timing of what she is proposing. Rather than talking about completing the new Glasgow-Edinburgh route once agreement on the cross-border line is reached – something that is supposed to happen by 2015 – she is now talking about an up-front commitment to this aspect of the network.
Incidentally, this helps us make sense of the decision to slash investment in the Glasgow Edinburgh Improvement Programme in the summer by £350m. This electrification project would have cut journey times from 55 minutes to 37 between Scotland’s two biggest cities but will now only see it reduced to 42 minutes. When announcing the revised scope for EGIP in July, Transport Minister said one of the reasons was to ensure it was compatible with the Scottish Government’s high speed rail ambitions. Now we know why.
A positive view of Ms Sturgeon’s announcement this week is it puts pressure on Westminster to deliver the southern section of a cross-border high speed rail line by making clear Scotland’s commitment to the project. A more cynical view is that it is jam tomorrow, a political promise located so far in the future that there will be no comeback when it isn’t delivered.
In either case, there is no way it will happen in isolation. The prospect of Glasgow and Edinburgh getting yet another rail link depend entirely on how the wider UK high speed rail network develops.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article