BCC High Speed Rail Report

Scotland Chapter

Introduction

Scottish Chambers of Commerce have long been supportive of the development of a UK

High Speed Rail network. Scotland’s cities are geographically more remote from
London than other principal UK conurbations. With rail journey times between central
Scotland and London currently between 4 and 5 hours and journey times from Dundee,
Aberdeen and the Highlands even longer, the vast majority of travel between Scotland
and London is by air. Currently there are around 100 flights per day from central
Scotland airports to London. HSR has the potential to dramatically widen transport
choices on these key domestic routes and contribute towards UK and Scottish
Government targets to reduce carbon emissions.

Chambers in Scotland have led the campaign to communicate the business and
economic case for High Speed Rail north of the border. We have been successful in
lobbying the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, both of which have come
out firmly in support of HSR, and it has been included as an aspiration in the new Scottish
National Planning Framework. Scottish Chambers have also been lobbying our
Westminster representatives, with all of the major parties expressing enthusiasm for
bringing HSR to Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament’s Transport Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee

concluded that ‘probably the single most important message’ of its recent report on the
case for HSR is that it is ‘imperative that the development of high-speed rail services in
the UK must include Scotland as a component of any plans from the outset.’…’the
Scottish Government should, as a priority, enter dialogue with the UK Government to
consider how the idea of a high-speed rail line to Scotland might be taken forward’.

Whilst capacity is the primary driver of HSR in southern areas of the UK, journey time is more
important to Scotland. In both situations, a robust business case needs to be developed. If
that gap cannot be addressed, Scotland may be permanently disadvantaged.

In developing a network simultaneously from north and south, it is crucial that both ends are
compatible in terms of system design, and technical specification. There is no obvious reason
for Scotland to adopt different specifications. As detailed work on HSR in England is about a
year ahead of Scotland, it is probably sensible for Scotland to deploy the specifications as they
are determined for the southern end.

Case for HSR

Journey Time

In Scotland, the key advantage of High Speed Rail is in reducing journey times between
Scotland and London. This should have a knock on effect in facilitating modal shift from
air to rail for domestic travel between central Scotland and London.
HSR saves time-costs on existing journeys and make new ones feasible, opening up new
markets and opportunities. Over distances of 250-500 miles, HSR is generally the quickest
mode (taking into account connections, check-in, security, etc). Rail travel has the added
advantage that it is possible to work for a greater proportion of the journey time than in
airports/aircraft, rendering the journey time itself more productive. These factors are
particularly important for Scotland.

French experience suggests that a 3 hour journey time will ensure a share of 60%-70% of the
passenger market. Before the introduction of the TGV Mediterranean service between
Paris and Marseille in 2001, rail held only 22% of the air-rail market between them.
Within four years of the introduction of the TGV service, the market share held by rail
rose to 65%.

There were around 7 million air and rail trips from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London last year.
CAA statistics for 2008 show 6.05 million air passengers between the 5 London Airports
and Central Scotland (Edinburgh 3.16, Glasgow 2.49 and Prestwick 0.40). Rail
accounted for just one-in-six of central Scotland to London journeys, and is not generally time-
competitive with air travel.

The fastest Scotland-London rail schedules from Glasgow and Edinburgh are 4hr10, with
others up to 5 hours. Sleeper trains are slower still, by design. Passenger numbers have
been growing strongly on the West and East Coast mainlines (WCML, ECML) but largely on
their Southern stretches – meaning less scope for accelerated, fewer-stop services from
Scotland. Anglo-Scottish air traffic has grown strongly too, increasing by 240% from 1995-
2004. Today, around 100 daily flights depart Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick for London.

London – Scotland Travel, 2007

London to % trips by rail Total by rail Total by air Total by car
Edinburgh 20 740,000 2,810,000 200,000
Glasgow 12 390,000 2,600,000 190,000

Current trends show that air trips continued to rise in 2008, taking a dip in 2009 as the
recession has led firms to cut costs. Current modal shares contrast with countries where HSR
operates and dominates the market for journeys of similar distance.

Capacity and Demand

It must be remembered that the rail network can never run at full capacity. Unavoidable
delays, the need for reliability and maintenance needs all dictate that 100% capacity can never
be fully achieved. Current high capacity levels mean that the East and West coast lines are
severely hampered, for example, as tourism conduits to Scotland by the closure of parts of the
line every weekend for routine repairs.

Rising demand is considered unlikely to abate over the long-term. ECML passenger numbers
are projected to grow by 69%, WCML by 104%. Network Rail latest figures for 2036 predict
rises of London-Glasgow between 14% and 78%, and for London-Edinburgh between 43%
and 109%. The WCML is often seen as a case in support of providing new, rather than
upgrading existing, lines. The logistics of upgrading a busy operational railway were such that
the near-£10bn, 10-year, WCML upgrade (which caused long-term disruption) delivered a
route that may still reach full capacity in 2016, and an average speed increase of only 10mph.
It is recognised that there are no absolutes in terms of improvements possible on existing
networks as scheduling, signalling improvements, etc can all make differences. What we can
guarantee is that the existing network will not provide the kind of High Speed Services we
need.

Economic Benefits

WS Atkins calculates that a London-Scotland route via Newcastle with a separate line to
Manchester, would cost £31bn, with economic benefits double that over 60 years, including
£7bn accruing to Scotland (in current prices). Atkins identified a benefit:cost ratio of 2.5 for
an ‘east coast’ route or 2.0 for a ‘west coast’ or a ‘full network’. Others have arrived at
similar benefit:cost ratios, although many variables need to be considered and assumptions
tested e.g. route/stations, costs (construction, operation, ticket prices, underlying economic
conditions). Network Rail studies show that Scotland-London HSR revenues could cover its
operating costs, thus requiring no on-going subsidy.

Some high-value (usually service) sectors respond particularly well to transport improvements;
particularly important sectors for Scotland such as financial and professional business
services. Scottish Enterprise’s submission to Scottish Parliament’s Transport,
Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee inquiry into High Speed Rail noted that
some of what it categorises as Scotland’s priority industries (financial services, food and
drink and tourism) would benefit from HSR. There is a danger that high-speed rail serving
only English cities would see Scotland significantly disadvantaged and becoming less
attractive as a place to do business.

By bringing Scotland and London closer together and facilitating transport between them, HSR
should also deliver significant potential benefits to Scotland’s tourism industry. For example, at
present only some 10% of Japanese leisure visitors to the UK take in Scotland as part of their
trip. By bringing Scotland within three hours of central London, it should be possible to target a
substantial increase in this number.

Shorter journey times and better links to the capital are also likely to have a positive effect in
terms of regeneration in Scotland’s central belt.

Scottish and UK Governments have targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by
2050. Transport contributes over a quarter of UK’s CO2 , with domestic aviation is extremely
carbon-intensive, and one of its fastest growing sources. High-speed potentially requires more
energy than current trains but still much less than aircraft. Furthermore, rail’s electric energy
source can be increasingly be from low-carbon sources. In addition, modern trains with
better aerodynamic design, regenerative braking, built of lighter composite materials and
with fewer stops per mileage can make significant advances in energy efficiency.

London Terminus and Heathrow Spur

A number of Scotland-London HSR route options have been considered. Connections with
England’s major provincial cities are important but the priority is a London link that serves both
Glasgow and Edinburgh. The debate about what would be the best route is clearly influenced
by cost benefit analyses.

In view of capacity pressures and market size, it seems most likely that a HSR network will
begin between London, then to Birmingham, stretching to Manchester and Leeds later.
Present indications are that the UK government is favouring a route via Heathrow. Such an
approach has significant dangers for Scotland. The quality of our connectivity would be
comparatively diminished by a delay in extending the network northwards. The Rail Minister
maintains that by allowing distance rolling stock to convert to HSR format, a train running to
Birmingham on High Speed Line 2 and then on to (say) Glasgow on WCML would achieve a
half hour reduction in journey time. Such thinking creates a strong possibility the connection
would never happen. For these reasons, we feel it is important that work on the Scottish
section of a HSR network is undertaken in parallel with work in the South.

Only in this way can Scotland’s comparative disadvantage avoid being perpetuated. In
particular, as the European network of HSR expands, it may be an absolute
disadvantage to be disconnected from it. However, it is currently difficult, if not
impossible to quantify this effect.

The following points are material to our case. The UK Government’s contention that ‘If
Scotland is serious about wanting High Speed Rail then the strongest argument for
Westminster is for the Scottish Government to commit to build Edinburgh-Glasgow’
simply does not wash, as the economic imperative for such an investment is lost if it is
not a guaranteed link in building through to central London and beyond. Additionally, it
is clear from business views in Yorkshire and North East England that a key driver for a
North-South national HSR line is for them to be able to trade with Scotland. It is difficult,
if not impossible, to design and therefore cost the optimum Edinburgh-Glasgow route
unless you have a clear indication of how Anglo-Scottish HSR is configured through
northern England.

It is the Scottish sections of the existing Anglo-Scottish network that have the lowest
operating speeds so the biggest savings in journey time would be gained by starting
construction at the northern end.

HSR needs to be seen as a network of services, rather than a piece of infrastructure. The key
issues are journey times and frequencies; with ‘soft’ issues such as fare levels and passenger
service. In England the primary origin/destination is clearly London, followed by Heathrow
Airport. In Scotland the primary origin/destination is also London, followed by major cities in
north England, with Heathrow some way behind.

Stats Box
Scotland Stats Box

• £7bn economic boost

• Less than 3 hours Scotland to London travel time

• Proportion of rail journeys increasing from 17% to

over 65%