Is high-speed (225mph) rail dead in the UK?

[swt_passenger]

This might be a silly question, but is in-cab signalling compatible with lineside signalling?
ie, if the ECML was upgraded to in-cab signalling, would that mean that all trains using those lines would also have to be upgraded ... or could it be only those planned to run at >125mph with other trains still running as now using the existing signalling?

Yes you can have ETCS and existing signals. as on the Thameslink Core, but in the south ECML area it is intended to include all trains including the small amount of freight. There’s a dedicated thread about it, it suggests almost all passenger stock used in the area is already ETCS ready.

First ETCS train operates on the East Coast Mainline

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I did look but didn't see a thread. On Sunday, 2 June, Great Northern operated a Class 717 electric multiple unit using European Train Control System (ETCS). This digital train protection system sends signalling information straight to the...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HSTEd]

Collapse? Milton Keynes and other WCML only destinations will mean income won’t fall that sharply. This is also true for future high speed, such as to Goldborne, Manchester and York.

The farebox data for the WCML leaked in appendix to a study on HS2.

Although Milton Keynes was not nothing, it paled in comparison to the combined London-Manchester, London-Liverpool, London-Birmingham et al fareboxes which will be removed from the southern WCML by HS2.

Tickets for London to Milton Keynes are rather cheap, so they don't raise that much money despite the large flow. I've got the document but I don't think its a good idea to post it here given that the version with the data was only up for a matter of hours. It was ~£204m for London-Manchester for example, the only non-HS2 southern WCML flow to get over £50m was Milton Keynes-London, at ~£52m.

HS2's ultra high speed, ultra long distance model will absorb the most renumerative traffic, but it does little to reduce the operating costs of the classic railway.

 

[Nottingham59]

Collapse? Milton Keynes and other WCML only destinations will mean income won’t fall that sharply.

• Anytime return Manchester to Euston = £369. Total Passenger flow (MAN-EUS) = 4003 pax/day
• Anytime day return Milton Keynes to Euston = £49.60. Total passenger flow = 3957 pax/day

I would guess that the Manchester flows will have a higher proportion of business types on expenses than the commuter traffic from Milton Keynes.

The price sensitive customer segment from Manchester may still go via WCML, but the money will go via HS2. Sorry.

Same goes for passengers from Birmingham:

• Anytime return New St to London = £188.80. Total passenger flow (BHM-EUS) = 3475/day
• Anytime day return Watford Junction to London = £22. Passenger flow (WHJ-EUS) = 3746/day

These are the top four destination stations out of Euston. Nowhere else has more than 2000 pax/day

 

[JD1504]

Short version:

Will we see another HS2-speed line in the UK?

Longer version:

Hello! I’m a long-time listener, first-time caller, as they say. I grew up in London in the ‘80s and ‘90s, so I’m just old enough to feel nostalgic for the liveries of Network SouthEast and the InterCity swallow, clacking departure boards, paper tickets, and the old stations at London Bridge and Blackfriars. Of course I was a kid then: I never had to rely on BR to commute. I am now a middle-aged dad with the requisite interest in trains and a northern father in law who is always ready to rant about Beeching.

Anyhoo, I share what seems to be the consensus opinion on HS2 – that it’s been horribly mismanaged, but given where we are it makes sense to extend to Euston, finish regenerating the area, build HS2 Lite as soon as possible and drop the HS2 brand.

But I’m curious: do you think that the 'Aston to Acton Euston shuttle' will be the UK’s only foray into crazy-fast rail? Given the expense, I can see the ‘Lite’ approach being the model going forward, both now and for any future lines. We’re a small country. But I could be wrong.

Not dead as anything in possible but in reality large amounts of infrastructure within the UK is not equipped for for capable of handling high speed trains and a complete overhaul would be needed. To upgrade the current network would take years of disruption to existing services or the alternative would be to build a whole new line (sounds a lot like HS2, right).

 

[mike57]

paying for something that should generate lots of cash.

Without getting too far off topic, I dont think the economics will stack up.

More importantly the HS2 debacle has badly damaged the case for High Speed rail rail in the UK, and the damage is long term. I cant see any of the major political parties paying more than lip service to new build high speed lines for many years, and I suspect any major upgrades to existing routes beyond electrification will also be affected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Dec 2024 ==

Anytime return Manchester to Euston = £369. Total Passenger flow (MAN-EUS) = 4003 pax/day

Is this people paying £369 or total return tickets, with many paying substantially less?

 

[Nottingham59]

Is this people paying £369 or total return tickets, with many paying substantially less?

Total passenger flow between Man Piccadilly and Euston is 4000 per day. Most of these will be paying substantially less than full fare. My point is that a large portion of the total ticket revenue for the route will come from the business types on expenses paying full fare.

As HSTEd said, the ticket revenue from the London-Manchester flows greatly exceeds ticket revenue from Milton Keynes. And the majority of that Manchester revenue will go via HS2. (As will the flow from Liverpool Lime St and Birmingham New St.)

Tickets for London to Milton Keynes are rather cheap, so they don't raise that much money despite the large flow. I've got the document but I don't think its a good idea to post it here given that the version with the data was only up for a matter of hours. It was ~£204m for London-Manchester for example, the only non-HS2 southern WCML flow to get over £50m was Milton Keynes-London, at ~£52m.

ORR station pair passenger flow date can be found here: https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/EUS/

 

[mike57]

My point is that a large portion of the total ticket revenue for the route will come from the business types on expenses paying full fare.

Do we know how many 'full fares' are actually sold?

 

[Nottingham59]

Do we know how many 'full fares' are actually sold?

No. But I'd expect the majority of passengers from Manchester arriving into Euston on peak-time morning trains to be paying full fare (or full fare with railcard discount). Given the prices they can extort charge, why would Avanti allow any other ticket type to be used on those trains?

 

[A S Leib]

Is the proportion of Birmingham / further north – Euston passengers using season tickets publicly known?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. But I'd expect the majority of passengers from Manchester arriving into Euston on peak-time morning trains to be paying full fare (or full fare with railcard discount). Given the prices they can extort charge, why would Avanti allow any other ticket type to be used on those trains?

I very much doubt many Anytime Returns are sold these days, mostly people will be on Advances priced lower, though only a little lower. In practice it's probably just a fare cap.

 

[redthegraduate]

Hey, thanks for the discussion. This is all fascinating.

If I'm hearing people right, the takeaway seems to be that:
* the HS2 fiasco has been damaging, but attitudes may soften when the line opens
* it's easier – in the short term, at least – for governments to fund the drip-drip costs of patching old infrastructure than secure the funding needed for mega projects, even if the country probably needs them
* if anything happens, it will probably be a series of separate extensions (such as Birmingham to Crewe) over decades

 

[Nottingham59]

I very much doubt many Anytime Returns are sold these days, mostly people will be on Advances priced lower, though only a little lower. In practice it's probably just a fare cap.

How many advances are available to arrive in London tomorrow morning before, say, ten o'clock?

 

[A S Leib]

How many advances are available to arrive in London tomorrow morning before, say, ten o'clock?

None from Crewe or Stoke and only the 09:54 arrival from Birmingham.

 

[FGWHST43009]

I'd be surprised if there are any proposals for a HS line as long as HS2 was originally planned. However I think smaller projects consisting of some higher speed cut offs to receive bottlenecks may be politically acceptable, particularly if HS2 delivers clear benefits when it opens. In my opinion attention should be given to projects that relive the ECML. Whether this alone could also relive the MML as well I don't know.

One of the options considered as part of the various Strategic Alternatives to HS2 was a new section of line between Alexandra Palace and Biggleswade, which would help relive the southern section of the ECML. This would probably have to be considered in conjunction with other projects such as four tracking all the way to Peterborough or even dusting off elements of Virgin's 2002 ECML franchise bid proposals. Calling a projects HS3 is also likely to attract negative media and political attention. So breaking them up into bitesize chunks (e.g. ECML South Capacity Relief Line) and delivering them separately may also need to be considered.

I was thinking about the time when HS2 gets all the way to Manchester; Edinburgh and Glasgow are less than four hours from London via Carlisle; and at least Derby and Sheffield are served by HS2 services, if not Leeds.

I'd expect to see demand for 4tph to Birmingham and 4tph to Manchester; 1tph to Glasgow; 2tph to Edinburgh; 2tph to Liverpool; 1tph to an electrified Chester; 2tph to Derby and Sheffield; 1tph to Warrington and Preston. That's HS2 full, even without the eastern arm of the Y.

EDIT
Looking to the future, I'd propose that the standard speeds on GB mainlines should be:

• 110 mph, as this seems to be the fastest that trains can go without aerodynamic effects precluding end connections, as exemplified by 350s on the WCML.
• 155 mph (250kph). With ETCS giving in-cab signalling, there is no obvious reason to keep 125mph as a standard. It's not sufficiently different from 110mph to justify the complications of mixing linespeeds on a major railway. Many new trains in Europe are being designed for 250 kph running. I believe there are some technical standards in Europe which require additional costs for trains faster than 250 kph, but I don't know what these are.
• 225 mph (360 kph), which is the standard adopted by HS2. Their aspiration of 400 kph running seems to be impractical at the current state of technology, but I agree with their decision to build the line with a minimum curvature of 8250m which is compatible with 400 kph speeds. I don't know if the HS2 standard of 125 mph (200kph) speed limits for turnouts is a fundament constraint or not.

Looking at specific lines, I'd propose:

• Extensions to HS2 should be at the current standard (360 kph with scope for 400 kph). I'd choose a route to Manchester that allowed 400kph running right up to the edge of the conurbation, rather than the ridiculour S-bend at 125 mph around Tatton Park that is in the current plans.
• 155mph would be a good aspiration for the relatively straight East Coast and the Great Western routes, rather than 140mph.
• Any new line from Liverpool to Leeds should be at 110 mph. Distances between stations are not far enough to justify a high speed line, and it will be an intensively used commuter railway, rather than a long-distance route. Beyond Leeds, 155mph would be a good choice to join the ECML.
• Any new passing loops on the WCML north of Preston should be straight enough for 155 mph running, even though trains are likely to be limited to 110/125 mph for the lifetime of current HS2 stock.

Apart from the above, I don't see

How about combining both of these and maybe reusing some of the ideas from Virgin's proposal? Also maybe there could be a focus on speeding up the routes that XC run along? 3 categories of railway is good, maybe we could upgrade secondary routes like the S&C and Tyne Valley to similar standards to the third category? Could provide relief for the WCML.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I was thinking about the time when HS2 gets all the way to Manchester; Edinburgh and Glasgow are less than four hours from London via Carlisle; and at least Derby and Sheffield are served by HS2 services, if not Leeds.

I'd expect to see demand for 4tph to Birmingham and 4tph to Manchester; 1tph to Glasgow; 2tph to Edinburgh; 2tph to Liverpool; 1tph to an electrified Chester; 2tph to Derby and Sheffield; 1tph to Warrington and Preston. That's HS2 full, even without the eastern arm of the Y.

EDIT
Looking to the future, I'd propose that the standard speeds on GB mainlines should be:

• 110 mph, as this seems to be the fastest that trains can go without aerodynamic effects precluding end connections, as exemplified by 350s on the WCML.
• 155 mph (250kph). With ETCS giving in-cab signalling, there is no obvious reason to keep 125mph as a standard. It's not sufficiently different from 110mph to justify the complications of mixing linespeeds on a major railway. Many new trains in Europe are being designed for 250 kph running. I believe there are some technical standards in Europe which require additional costs for trains faster than 250 kph, but I don't know what these are.
• 225 mph (360 kph), which is the standard adopted by HS2. Their aspiration of 400 kph running seems to be impractical at the current state of technology, but I agree with their decision to build the line with a minimum curvature of 8250m which is compatible with 400 kph speeds. I don't know if the HS2 standard of 125 mph (200kph) speed limits for turnouts is a fundament constraint or not.

Looking at specific lines, I'd propose:

• Extensions to HS2 should be at the current standard (360 kph with scope for 400 kph). I'd choose a route to Manchester that allowed 400kph running right up to the edge of the conurbation, rather than the ridiculour S-bend at 125 mph around Tatton Park that is in the current plans.
• 155mph would be a good aspiration for the relatively straight East Coast and the Great Western routes, rather than 140mph.
• Any new line from Liverpool to Leeds should be at 110 mph. Distances between stations are not far enough to justify a high speed line, and it will be an intensively used commuter railway, rather than a long-distance route. Beyond Leeds, 155mph would be a good choice to join the ECML.
• Any new passing loops on the WCML north of Preston should be straight enough for 155 mph running, even though trains are likely to be limited to 110/125 mph for the lifetime of current HS2 stock.

Apart from the above, I don't see

AIUI the power supply needed to run a high speed electric train is proportional to the cube of the speed so for the following train speeds the following multiples of power compared to 125mph/200kph are needed and the following run times apply for the 150km from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Interchange
125mph/200kph 1.00 45 minutes
140mph/225kph 1.42 40 minutes (this is the speed of the Southeastern Highspeed Class 395 Javelin trains)
155mph/250kph 1.95 36 minutes
186mph/300kph 3.38 30 minutes
200mph/320kph 4.00 28 minutes
225mph/360kph 5.83 25 minutes
250mph/400kph 8.00 23 minutes
I do not understand why anyone ever thought it was realistic for trains to run at 360kph or 400kph or there was any point in doing so in Great Britain. There are already shortages of power on the electrified rail network even with the maximum train speed of 125mph/200kph on the main lines excluding HS1. The maximum speed of HS2 trains may as well be the same as Southeastern Highspeed Class 395 Javelin trains (140mph/225kph) as there is little further gain in travel time between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange running at speeds any higher than 140mph/225kph and the amount of electric power needed means it is not worth it and may not be possible.

 

[brad465]

Any future HS lines should follow motorway/major trunk road corridors, like HS1 does and many continental equivalents. If going to the Midlands and further north again, follow the M1. To the West Country, follow the M4. If a SW to Midlands version that then connected to HS2 is made, follow the M5. If the motorway is already there, NIMBY arguments and costly mitigations get nowhere and compulsory purchasing of land needs are much lower.

 

[HSTEd]

I do not understand why anyone ever thought it was realistic for trains to run at 360kph or 400kph or there was any point in doing so in Great Britain. There are already shortages of power on the electrified rail network even with the maximum train speed of 125mph/200kph on the main lines excluding HS1. The maximum speed of HS2 trains may as well be the same as Southeastern Highspeed Class 395 Javelin trains (140mph/225kph) as there is little further gain in travel time between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange running at speeds any higher than 140mph/225kph and the amount of electric power needed means it is not worth it and may not be possible.

Modern high speed trains are capable of very high accelerations, and can potentially make use of these top speeds to drive meaningful reductions in journey times.

As for power supply limits, even as originally planned, HS2 would be quite far away from the true limits of practical 25kV systems.
The reason conventional railways have power supply limits is because of tight specification of supply points, not because the physical limits of the system are being approached.

 

[JamesT]

AIUI the power supply needed to run a high speed electric train is proportional to the cube of the speed so for the following train speeds the following multiples of power compared to 125mph/200kph are needed and the following run times apply for the 150km from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Interchange
125mph/200kph 1.00 45 minutes
140mph/225kph 1.42 40 minutes (this is the speed of the Southeastern Highspeed Class 395 Javelin trains)
155mph/250kph 1.95 36 minutes
186mph/300kph 3.38 30 minutes
200mph/320kph 4.00 28 minutes
225mph/360kph 5.83 25 minutes
250mph/400kph 8.00 23 minutes
I do not understand why anyone ever thought it was realistic for trains to run at 360kph or 400kph or there was any point in doing so in Great Britain. There are already shortages of power on the electrified rail network even with the maximum train speed of 125mph/200kph on the main lines excluding HS1. The maximum speed of HS2 trains may as well be the same as Southeastern Highspeed Class 395 Javelin trains (140mph/225kph) as there is little further gain in travel time between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange running at speeds any higher than 140mph/225kph and the amount of electric power needed means it is not worth it and may not be possible.

Because the trains aren't going solely between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange?
If it hadn't been cancelled, Phase 2 would have included new high speed track all the way from London to Manchester, driving a reduction in journey time from over 2 hours to just over an hour. If you ran them at roughly 2/3rds the speed as you suggest (for timetabling the normal top speed of a HS2 train will be 200mph) then you'd only get half the time benefit.
Many countries around the world already run trains at these speeds, there's nothing exceptional about wanting the UK to do the same. The 250mph alignment is a little faster than average, but as noted before in the many threads on HS2, you only get to choose your alignment once. The French have performed upgrades on some of their earliest LGV lines to bring them up to current speed standard, why not start off from a position of being capable of handling it?

 

[quantinghome]

If we do see more high speed lines, I don't think we'll see the design speeds of HS2 replicated. The net gain in going faster is too small and the net cost too high. Even with HS2 it isn't really worth it. Let's look:

360kph running speed is only being implemented from roughly where HS2 crosses the M25 to roughly where it crosses the M42 and slows to 300kph when passing Birmingham Interchange. This is around 125km. Everywhere else is 300kph or less.

At 360kph that takes 21 minutes
At 330kph that takes 23 minutes
At 300kph that takes 25 minutes

If we were ever to push the speed up to 400kph, that takes 19 minutes. By Grabthar's Hammer... what a saving!

Let's also bear in mind that HS2 is designed for a service timetabled at 330kph, with the extra 30kph there as an allowance for keeping to time.

Higher speeds only give a benefit when they are sustained over long distances. London-Birmingham is pretty much the longest uninterrupted distance that high speed lines in the UK will ever likely be designed for. And that gives us, what, 4 minutes gained by increasing the max speed from 300 to 360 kph, half of which is devoted to timetable regulation. And this is achieved at significant incremental cost as it introduces all sorts of issues, not only large tunnel cross-sections and greater track separation, but also esoteric stuff such as dealing with ground vibration boom when the train speed approaches the ground's surface wave velocity. The cost is not worth the gain.

North of Birmingham the major cities are closer together (50 to 80 km on the eastern leg, 100 km on the western) which makes very high speed lines even less worthwhile. In some places you'd barely get to 360kph before having to slow down again. What about a future connections further north? There you will hit geographical problems trying to get straighter alignments through the fells.

What about non-stop services? They are still going be subject to some slower sections through urban areas even if they aren't stopping (as we see at Birmingham Interchange), which reduces the effectiveness of the high top speed.

Maybe, just maybe, there might be in the distant future a direct London-Newcastle high speed line, with 360km distance uninterrupted by urban areas or hilly terrain. This would take:

72 minutes at 300kph
65 minutes at 330kph
60 minutes at 360kph
54 minutes at 400kph

That's a decent chunk of time saving, but we're not going to see that for some time, I would suggest.

 

[Nottingham59]

What about non-stop services? They are still going be subject to some slower sections through urban areas even if they aren't stopping (as we see at Birmingham Interchange), which reduces the effectiveness of the high top speed.

But I thought the design speed on the central lines through Interchange was 400kph, with 360kph planned for running on the direct route through towards Handsacre. See the 2016 plans here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80433c40f0b6230269279c/C224-ARP-CV-DPP-040-321300-FPD.pdf

Edit: There's a section north of Delta Junction where the design speed drops to 350kph, but no lower than that.

 

[Sorcerer]

On the subject of speed limits, it's not unusual for a line to be engineered for 360km/h when actual operational speeds are just 300/320, and this I feel is the sweet spot for high speed rail in most countries. China is the notable exception because of the greater distances between major cities. In the case of HS2 specifically the biggest time saves would've been from the London-Scotland services when they joined the line up north, so unfortunately some of it's greatest speed potential is a little lost on Phase 1. In the UK as a whole we should be aiming for a max service speed of 320km/h on future high speed lines. Anything beyond that wouldn't be worth the cost and energy consumption.

 

[quantinghome]

But I thought the design speed on the central lines through Interchange was 400kph, with 360kph planned for running on the direct route through towards Handsacre. See the 2016 plans here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80433c40f0b6230269279c/C224-ARP-CV-DPP-040-321300-FPD.pdf

Edit: There's a section north of Delta Junction where the design speed drops to 350kph, but no lower than that.

Ah, I think you're right. I just used the info on openrailwaymap as a quick reference - which is only as accurate as the person who uploaded it.

 

[FGWHST43009]

If we do see more high speed lines, I don't think we'll see the design speeds of HS2 replicated. The net gain in going faster is too small and the net cost too high. Even with HS2 it isn't really worth it. Let's look:

360kph running speed is only being implemented from roughly where HS2 crosses the M25 to roughly where it crosses the M42 and slows to 300kph when passing Birmingham Interchange. This is around 125km. Everywhere else is 300kph or less.

At 360kph that takes 21 minutes
At 330kph that takes 23 minutes
At 300kph that takes 25 minutes

If we were ever to push the speed up to 400kph, that takes 19 minutes. By Grabthar's Hammer... what a saving!

Let's also bear in mind that HS2 is designed for a service timetabled at 330kph, with the extra 30kph there as an allowance for keeping to time.

Higher speeds only give a benefit when they are sustained over long distances. London-Birmingham is pretty much the longest uninterrupted distance that high speed lines in the UK will ever likely be designed for. And that gives us, what, 4 minutes gained by increasing the max speed from 300 to 360 kph, half of which is devoted to timetable regulation. And this is achieved at significant incremental cost as it introduces all sorts of issues, not only large tunnel cross-sections and greater track separation, but also esoteric stuff such as dealing with ground vibration boom when the train speed approaches the ground's surface wave velocity. The cost is not worth the gain.

North of Birmingham the major cities are closer together (50 to 80 km on the eastern leg, 100 km on the western) which makes very high speed lines even less worthwhile. In some places you'd barely get to 360kph before having to slow down again. What about a future connections further north? There you will hit geographical problems trying to get straighter alignments through the fells.

What about non-stop services? They are still going be subject to some slower sections through urban areas even if they aren't stopping (as we see at Birmingham Interchange), which reduces the effectiveness of the high top speed.

Maybe, just maybe, there might be in the distant future a direct London-Newcastle high speed line, with 360km distance uninterrupted by urban areas or hilly terrain. This would take:

72 minutes at 300kph
65 minutes at 330kph
60 minutes at 360kph
54 minutes at 400kph

That's a decent chunk of time saving, but we're not going to see that for some time, I would suggest.

For a direct London-Newcastle line what sort of routing are you thinking of? Personally I'd go London-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds-Teeside-Newcastle-Edinburgh. I would add connecting links like the French do so that off-route stations can be served such as Derby, Chesterfield, Wakefield, York, Darlington and Durham.

How feasible would a 155mph ECML be? While feasible technologically I guess the question lies with how much of a journey time saving 30mph speed difference makes relative to the investment required. I like the idea of an ECML south bypass to avoid the congested sections such as through Welwyn.

 

[quantinghome]

For a direct London-Newcastle line what sort of routing are you thinking of? Personally I'd go London-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds-Teeside-Newcastle-Edinburgh. I would add connecting links like the French do so that off-route stations can be served such as Derby, Chesterfield, Wakefield, York, Darlington and Durham.

It's an entirely theoretical exercise, considering what could be the longest non-stop high speed route in the country. The whole point of such a line would be to maintain highest speeds, to serve the North-East and Scotland. So there wouldn't be much point routeing it through big cities along the way. It would likely run along a similar line to the A1 and ECML, but offset to avoid all the towns. Maybe you could have occasional links to cities on the way, Leeds being the most likely.

How feasible would a 155mph ECML be? While feasible technologically I guess the question lies with how much of a journey time saving 30mph speed difference makes relative to the investment required. I like the idea of an ECML south bypass to avoid the congested sections such as through Welwyn.

It may be theoretically possible but in practice it's pointless, if you are thinking about an upgrade to the existing route rather than a new build line. The existing station layouts already constrain the linespeed to below 125mph at regular intervals along the line, so even if it was theoretically possible to upgrade to 155mph you would only be able to do it over isolated sections, which would substantially diminishing the benefits. Upgrading to 140mph only gives you a few minutes' benefit, and the net improvement moving to 155 would be even less. And that's before you consider the effect on capacity. The ECML is a mixed speed railway, and it's already a horrendous job trying to balance the competing objectives of increasing capacity, maintaining regular services to all stations and running faster services. I think it's taken about 6 years to agree the new timetable being implemented later this year. Now imagine trying to do that with a greater speed differential between the fast trains and the stoppers.

 

[JamesT]

If the intention is to bypass at the Southern end of the ECML, why would this be better than uncancelling HS2's Eastern Leg? You'll avoid having to find a route out of London and assuming they don't completely hamstring it, there will be a terminus ready and waiting at Euston.

 

[quantinghome]

If the intention is to bypass at the Southern end of the ECML, why would this be better than uncancelling HS2's Eastern Leg? You'll avoid having to find a route out of London and assuming they don't completely hamstring it, there will be a terminus ready and waiting at Euston.

Oh, absolutely. As I said, this is an entirely theoretical exercise. It's not "we should build a line from London to Newcastle", it's "this is probably the only possible route you'd ever consider running 360kph+ on in the UK".

I guess it would only come into play in reality in the happy scenario that HS2 is built in full and then becomes capacity-constrained.