HS2 future northern extensions

[NotATrainspott]

The issue referred to isn't to do with Manchester, the example given was rather obviously illustrating that with the reduction of journey times on offer to Scotland HS2 isn't going end flights from Scotland, nor even reduce them significantly.

I suppose it does indicate that flights from Manchester might not be viable (depending on how many people are still connecting for long haul), but how many people does that add that don't already use the west coast main line... Not that many in the scheme of expenditure involved.

Good luck with getting to TCR in 5 minutes after arriving at Euston on HS2. I assume that's by teleporter, but doesn't that make HS2 redundant?

HSTEd's figures don't take into account the fact that any Crossrail passengers will change at Old Oak Common. HS2 Ltd's modelling has the vast majority of passengers from the west and east of London going to OOC on Crossrail 1 rather than trying to get to Euston, which would be used more for central, northern and southern London.

 

[HSTEd]

Good luck with getting to TCR in 5 minutes after arriving at Euston on HS2. I assume that's by teleporter, but doesn't that make HS2 redundant?

There is a few minutes play either way but it all depends where on the platform you are.
You are basically in the tube station if you are in the London end of the train - so walking down the train becomes a significant journey time saver.
Travel time on the tube is listed at 3-4 minutes.

 

[Camden]

There is a few minutes play either way but it all depends where on the platform you are.
You are basically in the tube station if you are in the London end of the train - so walking down the train becomes a significant journey time saver.
Travel time on the tube is listed at 3-4 minutes.

Few minutes play?? If there is any "play" it's certainly not either way. Or are you suggesting now that 5 minutes isn't fast enough, that you can do it in just 2?

First, it's unclear as to where the HS2 platforms will be in relation to access to the Underground. If you take St Pancras as an example, or even Kings Cross, providing immediacy to the tube as you step off the platform doesn't seem a priority in redevelopment (in fact, if you think it through, it's actually benefit for access to all plus crowd control if it isn't).

But let's ignore HS2 for a second and be charitable and assume present day, with no HS2.

Train arrives, step off train (at "London end", I assume you mean nearest the ticket barriers as the whole train is in London), walk up ramp, pass through barriers, walk across concourse to tube entrance, min 2 minutes. Down escalator, (assuming already have ticket) through barriers, down escalator and through corridor, min 2 minutes. Potential wait of 3 to 4 minutes. Journey time 7 minutes not 3-4. Leave train, up escalators and along to wherever you will now need to be to interchange for whatever onward services required - charitably assuming another 2 minutes.

So with the most efficient and speedy transfer today, it would already be at least 13 minutes to TCR (if it was open), or 17-18 if you've just missed a tube.

I think the example gives a good illustration, but only of the undue and unwarranted optimism of those that support HS2!

I would also be massively surprised if HS2 and new Euston didn't add at least 5 minutes to the present day interchange time. Plus of course not everyone can travel in the "London end". Some may even have an additional 400 metre walk from the "London end"!

 

[Noddy]

Comparing the UK to other European countries as if it's like for like (when they have completely different approaches to travel, and different geography) has been one of the great follies of HS2 supporters. The UK won't turn into France with HS2.

Yes our geography is smaller with shorter distances between our major cites and therefore more suited to rail than air.

Few minutes play?? If there is any "play" it's certainly not either way. Or are you suggesting now that 5 minutes isn't fast enough, that you can do it in just 2?

First, it's unclear as to where the HS2 platforms will be in relation to access to the Underground. If you take St Pancras as an example, or even Kings Cross, providing immediacy to the tube as you step off the platform doesn't seem a priority in redevelopment (in fact, if you think it through, it's actually benefit for access to all plus crowd control if it isn't).

But let's ignore HS2 for a second and be charitable and assume present day, with no HS2.

Train arrives, step off train (at "London end", I assume you mean nearest the ticket barriers as the whole train is in London), walk up ramp, pass through barriers, walk across concourse to tube entrance, min 2 minutes. Down escalator, (assuming already have ticket) through barriers, down escalator and through corridor, min 2 minutes. Potential wait of 3 to 4 minutes. Journey time 7 minutes not 3-4. Leave train, up escalators and along to wherever you will now need to be to interchange for whatever onward services required - charitably assuming another 2 minutes.

So with the most efficient and speedy transfer today, it would already be at least 13 minutes to TCR (if it was open), or 17-18 if you've just missed a tube.

I think the example gives a good illustration, but only of the undue and unwarranted optimism of those that support HS2!

I would also be massively surprised if HS2 and new Euston didn't add at least 5 minutes to the present day interchange time. Plus of course not everyone can travel in the "London end". Some may even have an additional 400 metre walk from the "London end"!

Or Paulweaver just changes at OOC like everyone else.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What is this 'enormous' environmental benefit from reducing internal flights?

Firstly, a lot of internal flights to heathrow will continue, as they are for connecting passengers (and this would be a lot higher if it wasn't heathrow being so crowded - many flights to AMS/FRA/CDG will also be for the same reason - so this could change if third runway goes ahead).

Secondly, airports are really handy for a lot of people. Anywhere in Western Edinburgh for example will find edinburgh airport a lot quicker to get to (even via public transport) than the city centre terminal at rush hour. I think a big fallacy is this idea that everyone is doing city-center to city-center, which I'm not sure is true.

Secondly, aviation contributes 6% of UK CO2. Domestic flights are somewhere around 10% of that total (https://www.theccc.org.uk/charts-data/ukemissions-by-sector/aviation/), of which not all are scotland/london flights.

So assuming HS2+ got marketshare of 60-70%, you'd be looking at a massive 0.2%-0.3% reduction in emissions...

Assuming your figures are correct (I haven't checked them) 60-70% of 0.6% of CO2 is actually about 0.4-0.5% (minus whatever CO2 HS2 burns). Less than that because HS2 clearly won't remove *all* internal flights. However:

• CO2 emissions from aircraft are considered to be much more damaging to the environment than CO2 emissions at ground level, so the environmental benefit is likely to be greater than the raw figure suggest.
• Air traffic has been rising as a CO2 contributor for some time, so it's reasonable to presume that in 20 or 30 years time, flights will contribute a much larger % of our CO2 emissions than they do today. HS2 will of course still be around in 20 or 30 years time, and so will be removing a correspondingly greater amount of CO2.
• HS2 is also likely to remove many car journeys - which makes for a further CO2 saving (as well as less congestion), although the flip-side of that is HS2 is likely to encourage more longer journeys by train.

But most importantly, my reaction even to that small figure of 0.2% is something like 'so what'? Our CO2 emissions come from millions of different activities by millions of people and businesses all over the country. So you're never going to get any one single project that removes a substantial part of that. Getting emissions down is ultimately going to be achieved by hundreds - thousands - tens of thousands of schemes of varying sizes, each one making a contribution that's individually insignificant, but which when you add them all up do become significant. Obviously, HS2 is very big and expensive and on a scale of the whole UK, you'd expect it to make orders-of-magnitude more difference to the environment than - say - a quarter-mile cycle path in your local town, but even so, in the bigger context, even 0.2% of the entire UK's emissions doesn't seem bad to me if that's coming from one single project.

 

[miami]

OK I used to regularly commute from Inverness to Bristol by easyjet and there is no way you could arrive at the airport at T10 and be taking off at T35. And those are small airports, not Manchester or Heathrow. So I am sceptical about some of your timings.

My best was 3 minutes taxi to gate 141 (assuming hand bagage only and already have boarding pass). Gate closes at T-10, so 15 minutes for taxi to gate is ample. I normally get there about T-30 and have time for a quick drink in the lounge.

Heathrow is longer, you have to be out of the taxi at T5 at T-37, although at T2 I've enterred security at T-18 in the past and made a domestic flight without issue.

I'd rather not cut it so fine, T-45 and T-30 respectively is better.

HS trains between Brussels and Paris have destroyed the air market between those two cities, despite Paris being a major hub airport.

Brussels isn't a hub, so it's only getting O&D traffic and people connecting through Heathrow.

On Monday there are the following flights to the 5 London airport

EDI: 28
GLA: 21
MAN: 9
NCL: 7
LBA: 3

BRU: 10
CDG/ORY: 18

If you had a 2 (not 3) hour train from Edinburgh you may drop the 8 flights into London City, that would leave you with 20, which is a similar amount to Paris.

I don't see any reason why it can't happen in the UK. There may always be a handful of connecting flights but the vast majority will go. I also suspect that major airlines like BA would offer through plane/train tickets for international travel. This would then free up some landing slots which could be used for more lucrative long distance flights.

BA don't run those planes for O&D flights (at least the Heathrow ones), they run them for the connections.

There are 2 flights a day from Exeter to London City, for O&D traffic. Exeter is tiny and it only 2 to 2.5 hours from London on train, yet sustains direct flights to the city. If Exeter can, even with a 2.5 hour Edinburgh/Glasgow run I'd still expect 5 or 6 flights each to LCY.

As for a Lufthansa style train integration, Virgin don't offer through tickets, and sadly they failed with little red - not enough transfer traffic. I expect if domestic flights go, the majority of passengers will simply transfer to. I already do this east, flying Qatar via Doha rather than BA via London, and my last trip to the States was on US Airways.

But all this ignores the elephant in the room. If HS2 was actually a hyperloop and did Glagsow/Edinburgh/Manchester/Newcastle/Leeds-Heathrow in 20 minutes, it will cause more emissions from Heathrow flights.

Remove those 37 flights from Heathrow and you'll just add 37 long haul flights. A long haul flight causes more pollution than a short haul flight.

If you want to reduce pollution caused by planes flying to/from Heathrow, increase the number of domestic flights. This would reduce the long haul slots dramatically.

 

[Noddy]

My best was 3 minutes taxi to gate 141 (assuming hand bagage only and already have boarding pass). Gate closes at T-10, so 15 minutes for taxi to gate is ample. I normally get there about T-30 and have time for a quick drink in the lounge.

Heathrow is longer, you have to be out of the taxi at T5 at T-37, although at T2 I've enterred security at T-18 in the past and made a domestic flight without issue.

I'd rather not cut it so fine, T-45 and T-30 respectively is better.

As someone who travelled regularly by plane using quieter I'm still skeptical about those timings. T=45 and T=30 may be just about ok for the plane departing the gate but it could easily be another 10 min of the plane taxiing and/or waiting for runway clearance before it actually take off. Not to mention risking delays at security and the increased cost and/or delay caused by missing your flight. For people travelling by plane who do it less often or are less familiar with the airports they're travelling through (eg they are going for meetings, or tourists) there is no way they'd leave it till 45 min before departure.

Brussels isn't a hub, so it's only getting O&D traffic and people connecting through Heathrow.

On Monday there are the following flights to the 5 London airport

EDI: 28
GLA: 21
MAN: 9
NCL: 7
LBA: 3

BRU: 10
CDG/ORY: 18

If you had a 2 (not 3) hour train from Edinburgh you may drop the 8 flights into London City, that would leave you with 20, which is a similar amount to Paris.



BA don't run those planes for O&D flights (at least the Heathrow ones), they run them for the connections.

There are 2 flights a day from Exeter to London City, for O&D traffic. Exeter is tiny and it only 2 to 2.5 hours from London on train, yet sustains direct flights to the city. If Exeter can, even with a 2.5 hour Edinburgh/Glasgow run I'd still expect 5 or 6 flights each to LCY.

As for a Lufthansa style train integration, Virgin don't offer through tickets, and sadly they failed with little red - not enough transfer traffic. I expect if domestic flights go, the majority of passengers will simply transfer to. I already do this east, flying Qatar via Doha rather than BA via London, and my last trip to the States was on US Airways.

I'm not convinced you read my post thoroughly. For a start I didn't say Brussels was a hub airport.

I don't doubt that a very small number of flights will survive. eg the three between LBA and London show there is a small market here despite the fast (c 2-2.5hrs) and frequent trains to King Cross. However you will note it's only three per day despite the population of Leeds and Bradford being 1.25 million.

As for Virgin not offering train/plane tickets there is currently no incentive, as there is not an easy connection from Euston or KX and would involve a ticket for Plane, HEx, Underground and Virgin.

However HS2 WILL reduce the number of people using domestic flights. The original point was that if a HS2 'Phase 3' section was built somewhere north of Manchester bringing Glasgow/Edinburgh into a sub three hour timing it would start to significantly capture the market for this route (eg 49 flights from the central belt on Monday).

But all this ignores the elephant in the room. If HS2 was actually a hyperloop and did Glagsow/Edinburgh/Manchester/Newcastle/Leeds-Heathrow in 20 minutes, it will cause more emissions from Heathrow flights.

Remove those 37 flights from Heathrow and you'll just add 37 long haul flights. A long haul flight causes more pollution than a short haul flight.

If you want to reduce pollution caused by planes flying to/from Heathrow, increase the number of domestic flights. This would reduce the long haul slots dramatically.

You've just made my point on combined plane/train tickets. If there is a decent connection between plane and train it is cheaper and easier for the plane operator to offer these combined tickets to free up (very expensive and lucrative) landing slots. As I said in my previous post.

 

[Tobbes]

I don't doubt that a very small number of flights will survive. eg the three between LBA and London show there is a small market here despite the fast (c 2-2.5hrs) and frequent trains to King Cross. However you will note it's only three per day despite the population of Leeds and Bradford being 1.25 million.

And which would BA prefer if all slots were equal at LHR? Three/day to LBA or more international? The money is not in interlining to/from Leeds, but if you have to be seen to fly domestically, then you do it. All other things being equal, this wouldn't be the case.

However HS2 WILL reduce the number of people using domestic flights. The original point was that if a HS2 'Phase 3' section was built somewhere north of Manchester bringing Glasgow/Edinburgh into a sub three hour timing it would start to significantly capture the market for this route (eg 49 flights from the central belt on Monday).

Absolutely right. And moreover, those who say that there won't be modal shift are assuming that the APD tax regime stays as it is now. I was involved in some analysis for a thinktank last year where we were looking at the use of APD to drive modal shift on flights where the rail time was <2h 30mins - the number of MAN - LON flights would fall (precipitately) if APD on those flights was £250 each way.

And why shouldn't government do this? As tax payers we're shelling out for HS2, and domestic air travel is far more environmentally damaging than rail - and given the fuel burn in taxi/takeoff/approach/landing is proportionately much greater than cruise, shorthaul per mile travelled is more damaging than longhaul.

You've just made my point on combined plane/train tickets. If there is a decent connection between plane and train it is cheaper and easier for the plane operator to offer these combined tickets to free up (very expensive and lucrative) landing slots. As I said in my previous post.

Indeed, which is why a loop via a redeveloped LHR with a 30 min frequency and a <2h 30min travel time to the Central Belt abstracts most of the traffic, especially if you use APD as a tool to drive modal shift.

 

[clc]

Absolutely right. And moreover, those who say that there won't be modal shift are assuming that the APD tax regime stays as it is now. I was involved in some analysis for a thinktank last year where we were looking at the use of APD to drive modal shift on flights where the rail time was <2h 30mins - the number of MAN - LON flights would fall (precipitately) if APD on those flights was £250 each way.

And why shouldn't government do this? As tax payers we're shelling out for HS2, and domestic air travel is far more environmentally damaging than rail - and given the fuel burn in taxi/takeoff/approach/landing is proportionately much greater than cruise, shorthaul per mile travelled is more damaging than longhaul.

... a loop via a redeveloped LHR with a 30 min frequency and a <2h 30min travel time to the Central Belt abstracts most of the traffic, especially if you use APD as a tool to drive modal shift.

Are you aware that the Scottish Govt plans to abolish APD?

 

[Haydn1971]

I don't doubt that a very small number of flights will survive. eg the three between LBA and London show there is a small market here despite the fast (c 2-2.5hrs) and frequent trains to King Cross. However you will note it's only three per day despite the population of Leeds and Bradford being 1.25 million.

Isn't this a tad misleading - people don't fly from Leeds Bradford to London, they fly from Leeds Bradford to get connecting flights from Heathrow. The train trip from Leeds to Heathrow via Kings Cross isn't an option I'd take.... 3:30hrs at best

 

[Noddy]

Isn't this a tad misleading - people don't fly from Leeds Bradford to London, they fly from Leeds Bradford to get connecting flights from Heathrow. The train trip from Leeds to Heathrow via Kings Cross isn't an option I'd take.... 3:30hrs at best

Exactly. But if the train journey was considerably quicker and/or direct then the train would be an option. Like with HS2/OOC/Crossrail. Even more like with HS2/Heathrow spur. Same applies to Glasgow/Edinburgh/Newcastle/Manchester/Liverpool. The quicker you can make the journey time the more people will transfer from plane to train. Once it reaches a certain level the plane operators will transfer their remaining customers onto rail in order to free up landing slots.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you aware that the Scottish Govt plans to abolish APD?

All this relies on a HS2 Phase 3 being built somewhere in northern England/southern Scotland so is very unlikely before 2030 at the absolute earliest. Who knows what the political make up or tax regime in Edinburgh (or the rUK) will look like in 15/20 years.

Without the missing Phase 3 section(s) the train journey time will not be reduced enough and air will remain preferred option for most travellers on the Central Belt/London route. So it's all pointless chat anyway.

 

[miami]

So replace an a319 to Leeds causing X pollution with a 777 to New York causing 4X pollution? That's a net loss for the environment.

And those flyers from Leeds will simply fly to Amsterdam, so you'll get a few more flights in that route.

 

[Tobbes]

Are you aware that the Scottish Govt plans to abolish APD?

Very aware. But that's the SNP's policy for now, and not for 2030. It's also environmentally illiterate populist nonsense, but that's a different matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So replace an a319 to Leeds causing X pollution with a 777 to New York causing 4X pollution? That's a net loss for the environment.

And those flyers from Leeds will simply fly to Amsterdam, so you'll get a few more flights in that route.

Far from clear that you shift to AMS - it will all depend on cost. And tax, as it happens.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Very aware. But that's the SNP's policy for now, and not for 2030. It's also environmentally illiterate populist nonsense, but that's a different matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Far from clear that you shift to AMS - it will all depend on cost. And tax, as it happens.

Air Passenger Duty is primarily intended to be a revenue-generating tax, not an environmental levy. The justification for abolishing it in Scotland is that the tax is inefficient as it stops an equivalent or greater amount of economic activity from taking place. That other activity would result in more jobs and more tax revenues from other areas so the upfront loss of revenue from APD would be balanced out by increases in other areas.

 

[CdBrux]

HS trains between Brussels and Paris have destroyed the air market between those two cities, despite Paris being a major hub airport. I don't see any reason why it can't happen in the UK. There may always be a handful of connecting flights but the vast majority will go. I also suspect that major airlines like BA would offer through plane/train tickets for international travel. This would then free up some landing slots which could be used for more lucrative long distance flights.

You have to remember that there is a relatively frequent (once per 2 hours or so) TGV from Brussels calling at CDG as well as the Thalys to central Paris. Air France sell plane/train tickets from Brussels via the TGV to CDG.

 

[edwin_m]

Paris-Brussels by train is under 1hr 30min so pretty much any journey between anywhere in the two cities would be quicker by train than by flying. London-Scotland journeys by train would take significantly longer, even with high speed line throughout, so it's not such an open and shut case.

 

[miami]

So if we have HS2+
* running at 300MPH (500kph) over the entire Edinburgh-London length
* with 1 train per 2 hours going to both Heathrow and the City

the air market will probably drop to something like 2 or 3 flights a day.

 

[dcsprior]

So if we have HS2+
* running at 300MPH (500kph) over the entire Edinburgh-London length
* with 1 train per 2 hours going to both Heathrow and the City

the air market will probably drop to something like 2 or 3 flights a day.

You'd also need through ticketing with guaranteed connections; and for it to be priced to compete with flights (at a minimum)

 

[class26]

So if we have HS2+
* running at 300MPH (500kph) over the entire Edinburgh-London length
* with 1 train per 2 hours going to both Heathrow and the City

the air market will probably drop to something like 2 or 3 flights a day.

But HS2 is NOT going to do 300 mph anyway, i have read several design speeds ranging from 250 mph capable but operating at 225 mph down to 320 kph (in English that`s about 200 mph) which is probably what it will end up being but definitely not 300 mph

 

[Tobbes]

I understood HS2 to be engineered for 400 kph and running at 320 kph with an option for 350kph operation in future. Perhaps someone could confirm?

This still suggest a comfortably sub-3hr Central Belt to London time - a true Thames-Clyde Express!

Thanks,

Toby

 

[NotATrainspott]

I understood HS2 to be engineered for 400 kph and running at 320 kph with an option for 350kph operation in future. Perhaps someone could confirm?

This still suggest a comfortably sub-3hr Central Belt to London time - a true Thames-Clyde Express!

Thanks,

Toby

The consultants were asked to design a 400km/h route but it is allowed to drop to 360km/h or less in locations where it would not be worthwhile, e.g. while weaving between the towns which are located between Liverpool and Manchester it drops to 300km/h and through hilly south Yorkshire it is limited to 360km/h. The intention is to timetable services to run at 330km/h but the trains would have a maximum service speed of 360km/h which would be used to make up time if there are delays.

 

[Haydn1971]

The consultants were asked to design a 400km/h route but it is allowed to drop to 360km/h or less in locations where it would not be worthwhile, e.g. while weaving between the towns which are located between Liverpool and Manchester it drops to 300km/h and through hilly south Yorkshire it is limited to 360km/h.

I seem to recall some even lower speed sections coming out of Meadowhall north in the most recent draft plans - 280kph perhaps

 

[miami]

Given the 125mph west coast only averages 80mph, can we expect a design speed of 330kph to only run at an average 220kph?

 

[Altnabreac]

Given the 125mph west coast only averages 80mph, can we expect a design speed of 330kph to only run at an average 220kph?

Is the new line being designed in the mid 19th century...

 

[Tobbes]

The consultants were asked to design a 400km/h route but it is allowed to drop to 360km/h or less in locations where it would not be worthwhile, e.g. while weaving between the towns which are located between Liverpool and Manchester it drops to 300km/h and through hilly south Yorkshire it is limited to 360km/h. The intention is to timetable services to run at 330km/h but the trains would have a maximum service speed of 360km/h which would be used to make up time if there are delays.

Many thanks!

 

[Altnabreac]

The consultants were asked to design a 400km/h route but it is allowed to drop to 360km/h or less in locations where it would not be worthwhile, e.g. while weaving between the towns which are located between Liverpool and Manchester it drops to 300km/h and through hilly south Yorkshire it is limited to 360km/h. The intention is to timetable services to run at 330km/h but the trains would have a maximum service speed of 360km/h which would be used to make up time if there are delays.

Also worth bearing in mind that the diverging turnout speed will be only 230kph I believe.

Given these will often be before shortish branches (Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester) it will not be worth the spurs having a design speed above the turnout speed.

For High Speed in Scotland this means a decision has to be made on which branch out of Edinburgh and Glasgow gets the 360kph treatment and which the 230kph...

 

[Noddy]

Also worth bearing in mind that the diverging turnout speed will be only 230kph I believe.

Given these will often be before shortish branches (Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester) it will not be worth the spurs having a design speed above the turnout speed.

For High Speed in Scotland this means a decision has to be made on which branch out of Edinburgh and Glasgow gets the 360kph treatment and which the 230kph...

If it's a Y shaped triangle surely both? But which figure....

 

[Bevan Price]

Assuming that HS2 actually gets built as currently proposed, I would be surprised if many of those reading this forum live to see HS2 get to Scotland. Trains using the southern parts of HS2 will be extended north via WCML & ECML, probably calling only at Preston before Glasgow & Edinburgh (WCML), and calling only at Newcastle & Edinburgh (ECML).

Intermediate stations are likely to remain served by conventional WCML and ECML trains, running to revised (possibly slower) timetables, and requiring passengers to change at somewhere like Preston or Leeds if they wish to use HS2 to get to/from London.

The SNP will probably whinge a lot, but unless Scotland is willing to fund most of the building & operating costs, there is unlikely to be a business case to extend the current HS2 proposals.

 

[clc]

Assuming that HS2 actually gets built as currently proposed, I would be surprised if many of those reading this forum live to see HS2 get to Scotland. Trains using the southern parts of HS2 will be extended north via WCML & ECML, probably calling only at Preston before Glasgow & Edinburgh (WCML), and calling only at Newcastle & Edinburgh (ECML).

Intermediate stations are likely to remain served by conventional WCML and ECML trains, running to revised (possibly slower) timetables, and requiring passengers to change at somewhere like Preston or Leeds if they wish to use HS2 to get to/from London.

The SNP will probably whinge a lot, but unless Scotland is willing to fund most of the building & operating costs, there is unlikely to be a business case to extend the current HS2 proposals.

I'd settle for Glasgow - Edinburgh HSR in the next 10 years and a 3 hour journey time to London in the next 20 years.

 

[The Planner]

Assuming that HS2 actually gets built as currently proposed, I would be surprised if many of those reading this forum live to see HS2 get to Scotland. Trains using the southern parts of HS2 will be extended north via WCML & ECML, probably calling only at Preston before Glasgow & Edinburgh (WCML), and calling only at Newcastle & Edinburgh

There will be at least 1tph HS2 train stopping north of Preston.