Restarting HS2a

[Class15]

At the House of Commons Transport Select Committee Oral Evidence on the Railways Bill on 7 January 2026, the Rail Minister Lord Hendy stated that the Government planned to keep the rail freight growth target of at least 75% by 2050. I do not see how they can deliver that without a substantial increase in the number of freight trains on the West Coast Main Line which they cannot deliver if they do not build HS2 to Crewe.

A whole load of this does not need new paths. There are so many unused freight paths, these should be repurposed.

 

[weeklycommuter]

These marginal savings between London and Birmingham are exactly why HS2 needed to run to at least Manchester/Leeds, in order to save a great deal more time. If only the Tories had been told before they stopped it

But I thought the real case for HS2 was capacity? Or am I suffering from a deficiency in the humour detection department?

The real case for HS2 is that the West Coast Main Line is full South of Crewe and no more freight or passenger trains can be run on it.

As the West Coast Main Line from Crewe to London along the Trent Valley is already mostly four track the requirement is for a new two track line for long distance high speed passenger trains from London to Birmingham and Crewe to free up capacity on the existing line for more freight and passenger trains.

The new line has to go to Crewe because it must bypass the two track Colwich Junction and Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck just South of Stafford.

The original HS2 phase one therefore needed to include the proposed phase 2a and join the existing West Coast Main Line at Crewe. Joining at Handsacre Junction is useless, this does not bypass the Colwich Junction and Shugborough Tunnel so it does not create any additional capacity for freight and passenger trains between the South of England and North West England, North Wales and Scotland.

Extensions to Manchester and to Leeds should never have been added to what was already by far the biggest and most expensive rail engineering project in the history of this country. Phase 2b to Manchester is worth doing but needed to be considered as a separate project after the completion of HS2 from London to Birmingham and Crewe.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Yes, that was often given as the reason, but think about it.
It was fundamentally wrong to design HS2 as a scheme from London to Birmingham, with add-ons to Manchester and Leeds. The correct design should always have been London to Manchester/Leeds as all or nothing, because that is what the UK has always needed.
The route never needed to serve Birmingham as top priority, because serving Manchester (and thus Liverpool and Scotland) removes many trains from the London to Birmingham route and thus inherently improves capacity here.

Your "correct design" is what was designed. A single, integrated high speed Y-shaped network that goes pretty directly towards the North West with Birmingham on a spur.

However, it was always going to be needed to be phased. For instance, there is not enough supply chain capacity to build the whole network simultaneously.
Phasing means prioritisation, and once the London end is prioritised, it's always going to make sense to deliver London-Birmingham first, because to build past Birmingham to reach Manchester frankly looks mad and it would be politically "very courageous" to try and build a railway through the West Midlands that did not serve its biggest city, especially since one of the key reasons why Birmingham's economy is believed to have performed quite poorly is to do with poor transport links.

HS2 does need to make serving Birmingham a top priority. Yes, HS2 will release capacity south of Rugby, but the railways around Birmingham, as well as New Street station are full, so building your proposal doesn't inherently improve capacity. Capacity is constrained by the 2-track Coventry corridor etc.

Upgrading the existing network (e.g. 4-tracking Coventry to Birmingham, completely rebuilding New Street) would mean years and years of disruption and weekend closures, and would also cost billions, and you'd then need to do something similar the other side to address Birmingham-Manchester/North West Capacity. This forum is littered with threads and posts proposing or decrying ideas to improve capacity/frequency/journey times. They are not addressing an imaginary issue.

It does not help that West Mids to North West connectivity is also poor and extremely reliant on the M6.

These are a big part of the reason why, despite cancelling HS2 Ph2a, the Government also cannot escape the logic that it needs to build something like it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes, that was often given as the reason, but think about it.
It was fundamentally wrong to design HS2 as a scheme from London to Birmingham, with add-ons to Manchester and Leeds. The correct design should always have been London to Manchester/Leeds as all or nothing, because that is what the UK has always needed.
The route never needed to serve Birmingham as top priority, because serving Manchester (and thus Liverpool and Scotland) removes many trains from the London to Birmingham route and thus inherently improves capacity here.

I can see the good people of Birmingham complaining if they were "by passd" by HS2 as in if London to Manchester had been built first as you suggest. Of course the opposite argument applies to Manchester but to a lesser extent. It makes sense to get the shortest piece that links two relevant conurbations done first. That would be London to Birmingham as London is the main traffic generator. By phasing HS2 the way it was Manchester gained some benefit also from phase 1. It is just that Phase 2a is an enormous improvement over Phase 1 on its own. I also think (hope) phase 2a is cheaper and easier to build than Phase 1 has been.

In my Crayonista world Birmingham to Manchester might well have been done first BUT that would have relied on a through station in Birmingham so that the route South to that big city no one wants to admit is important can be connected also - eventually.

 

[Shrop]

Extensions to Manchester and to Leeds should never have been added to what was already by far the biggest and most expensive rail engineering project in the history of this country.

No-one is denying the huge costs of HS2, but saying Manchester and Leeds should never have been added is just so short sighted.

The London-centric obsession ignores that not only would Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds been a fraction of the cost per mile, it would also have produced far more of a time saving too.

But it doesn’t stop there. Had the northern sections been built first, the public would have seen the huge economic benefits to the north, not to mention the excellent rail advances and time savings. In turn this would have led to public support for the far more expensive extension southwards to London.

Note that had the northern sections been bult first, they may well have been operational by now, and with public support this might have led to the London-Birmingham section being built just as soon as it will be completed anyway.

Instead, the London-centric obsession has undeniably resulted in much ridicule and alienated much of the public to railways generally, due to the vast cost increases of the scheme as it is. This is simply a factual observation of the present day situation. And meanwhile, the ever-spiralling costs and mismanagement have led to the loss of what are by far the most cost-effective parts of the scheme.

 

[HSTEd]

No-one is denying the huge costs of HS2, but saying Manchester and Leeds should never have been added is just so short sighted.

The London-centric obsession ignores that not only would Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds been a fraction of the cost per mile, it would also have produced far more of a time saving too.

The costs may well have been lower, but so are the benefits in terms of numbers of passengers who would have been served.
It's hard to fill a line from Manchester to Birmingham after all, the capacity available from a modern railway is truly enormous.

I'd also argue that focusing on some end state high speed rail system covering the entire country has resulted on a Phase 1 that can't really function alone.

It seems the designers thought that they had unlimited political backing and the project would be completed no matter what happened - this was not a good assumption.

The project should have designed a high speed line for London-Birmingham, serving the available intermediate traffic centres. Extensions beyond Birmingham should have been a potential future option, not absolutely necessary for the business case.

But it doesn’t stop there. Had the northern sections been built first, the public would have seen the huge economic benefits to the north, not to mention the excellent rail advances and time savings. In turn this would have led to public support for the far more expensive extension southwards to London.

If they are delivered on time and on budget, perhaps.
But if they suffer runaways they will turn into even bigger white elephants than Phase 1 is at risk of becoming.

A High speed railway line from Manchester to Birmingham could easily cost £20+bn at the outturn costs we are seeing. (HS2 Ltd gave a price of 'up to £7bn' EDIT: for phase 2a in their last report to Parliament before it was cancelled).

 

[NCT]

^^ Both are wrong.

The politics of a line trying to go through all medium-sized towns and igniting central vs parkway station debates in all of them would have been even more difficult than going through posh Chilterns.

London - Birmingham is already one of the biggest single-phase railway construction projects in Europe. A single phase substantially larger than that is not feasible.

The most pressing capacity need is commuter traffic between London and Birmingham which is currently being suppressed by inter-city services. The Birmingham - Manchester short-distance markets are far weaker.

 

[The Planner]

What benefits and released capacity would be available if building south of Manchester first? Doesn't take anything out south of Colwich.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The costs may well have been lower, but so are the benefits in terms of numbers of passengers who would have been served.
It's hard to fill a line from Manchester to Birmingham after all, the capacity available from a modern railway is truly enormous.

I'd also argue that focusing on some end state high speed rail system covering the entire country has resulted on a Phase 1 that can't really function alone.

It seems the designers thought that they had unlimited political backing and the project would be completed no matter what happened - this was not a good assumption.

The project should have designed a high speed line for London-Birmingham, serving the available intermediate traffic centres. Extensions beyond Birmingham should have been a potential future option, not absolutely necessary for the business case.

If they are delivered on time and on budget, perhaps.
But if they suffer runaways they will turn into even bigger white elephants than Phase 1 is at risk of becoming.

A High speed railway line from Manchester to Birmingham could easily cost £20+bn at the outturn costs we are seeing. (HS2 Ltd gave a price of 'up to £7bn' EDIT: for phase 2a in their last report to Parliament before it was cancelled).

My bold. Careful, do not really want to serve intermediate traffic centres - they are not big enough and are on the WCML anyway. From my view HS2 was intended to bypass all the hassle of upgrading the WCML any more. If anything Birmingham should be an intermediate stop on the line to Manchester.

Perhaps HS2 phase 1 should have just been to Birmingham. But then that would really make Manchester feel left out. I think it was fairly easy to get a decent bit of the way towards Manchester beyond the London to Birmingham section. I am just puzzled that did not include all the way to Crewe. Perhaps it was felt that this (what is now known as phase 2a Handsacre to Crewe) would be such an obvious thing to do that it would never get thrown out when it came to the time for it to be suggested !.

 

[eldomtom2]

What benefits and released capacity would be available if building south of Manchester first? Doesn't take anything out south of Colwich.

People advocating for building from Manchester south have never argued that it was the best option in terms of improving capacity, increasing travel speed, etc. - they have argued that it was the best option politically because an extension to London would in theory be less easy to cancel than an extension going away from London.

 

[SynthD]

Wikipedia says that a government announcement in 2012 split up the work into two phases. This appears to indicate that phases are a political change to the original HS2 plan. The answer to too much in this area (let alone others) is to strip back the changes made by the self serving politicians with short careers, and get back to what the experts wanted.

In turn this would have led to public support for the far more expensive extension southwards to London.

Unless it’s terrible value for money and people don’t trust the project should continue. That is a worse position than the present.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Wikipedia says that a government announcement in 2012 split up the work into two phases. This appears to indicate that phases are a political change to the original HS2 plan. The answer to too much in this area (let alone others) is to strip back the changes made by the self serving politicians with short careers, and get back to what the experts wanted.

That is a dose of reality.
I wonder if I (anyone ?) can find any of the early ideas/plans from before the politics got mixed in.

Unless it’s terrible value for money and people don’t trust the project should continue. That is a worse position than the present.

Yes that would have been a gamble. If the Northern half had got done first we would have been left with the most congested part of the WCML left un-relieved (the Southern end). It would have purely sped up London/Manchester services with no extra trains for anywhere including Manchester - apart from some extra Manchester local services and as far as Crewe, maybe Stafford.

 

[JamesT]

Wikipedia says that a government announcement in 2012 split up the work into two phases. This appears to indicate that phases are a political change to the original HS2 plan. The answer to too much in this area (let alone others) is to strip back the changes made by the self serving politicians with short careers, and get back to what the experts wanted.

I think you’re misreading that article. The initial announcement of HS2 in 2009: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2009-01-15/debates/090115102000004/TransportInfrastructure

Because of the need to plan for the long term, I can also announce that I am today forming a new company, High Speed 2, to consider the case for new high-speed rail services from London to Scotland. As a first stage, we have asked the company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and the west midlands; that would enable faster journeys to other destinations in the north of England and Scotland, using both existing lines and a new high-speed rail network.

Also, how would you envisage HS2 working without splitting into phases? Would the entire line have had to go through parliament in one giant bill? Construction commenced in 2020 after the passage of the phase 1 bill in 2017. It took several more years before the phase 2 bills were passed, should we have waited for it all before starting?
The phased approach also means benefits can start earlier. As soon as phase 1 is complete services can start running, not waiting for the entire Y to be built.
You cannot remove the politicians from the process. A project that is spending vast amounts of public money needs oversight from the public’s representatives.

 

[HSTEd]

My bold. Careful, do not really want to serve intermediate traffic centres - they are not big enough and are on the WCML anyway. From my view HS2 was intended to bypass all the hassle of upgrading the WCML any more.

Well the alternative is HS2 stays mostly empty and the WCML continues to consume money and resources trying to keep very old and unfit infrastructure going at high intensity.
If HS2 stopped at major intermediate traffic centres in the M1 corridor much of the operating cost of the WCML could be dispensed with.

If anything Birmingham should be an intermediate stop on the line to Manchester.

Well you will get no argument on that from me!

Perhaps HS2 phase 1 should have just been to Birmingham. But then that would really make Manchester feel left out. I think it was fairly easy to get a decent bit of the way towards Manchester beyond the London to Birmingham section. I am just puzzled that did not include all the way to Crewe. Perhaps it was felt that this (what is now known as phase 2a Handsacre to Crewe) would be such an obvious thing to do that it would never get thrown out when it came to the time for it to be suggested !.

I believe Phase 2a was imposed by the government when Phase 2a got accelerated to happen in parallel with Phase 1. HS2's original concept was either Handsacre or all the way to Manchester and LEeds.

Wikipedia says that a government announcement in 2012 split up the work into two phases. This appears to indicate that phases are a political change to the original HS2 plan. The answer to too much in this area (let alone others) is to strip back the changes made by the self serving politicians with short careers, and get back to what the experts wanted.

That was the splitting of Phase 2 into Phase 2a and 2b.

 

[Energy]

I believe Phase 2a was imposed by the government when Phase 2a got accelerated to happen in parallel with Phase 1. HS2's original concept was either Handsacre or all the way to Manchester and LEeds.

Indeed, 2a was implemented when it was realised that 1+2a had a far better business case than 1 alone.

If anything Birmingham should be an intermediate stop on the line to Manchester.

Well you will get no argument on that from me!

I agree, the original HS2 service plan was:
- 3tph 400m London to Manchester
- 3tph 400m London to Birmingham
- 2tph 200m Birmingham to Manchester

Switching to say 4tph 400m would increase the frequency on all routes, while being far less intense on the infrastructure.

A few options in Birmingham had been considered before Curzon Street (referred to originally as Fazeley Street) was selected.


An (unfortunately poor quality) diagram of the various station options considered for HS2 Birmingham. [source]



A diagram of the various route options considered for Birmingham, including a potential route for a through station. [source]

Well the alternative is HS2 stays mostly empty and the WCML continues to consume money and resources trying to keep very old and unfit infrastructure going at high intensity.
If HS2 stopped at major intermediate traffic centres in the M1 corridor much of the operating cost of the WCML could be dispensed with.

I'd add a station at Coventry to clear the Coventry/Birmingham WCML corridor of current Avanti trains.

The North Wales Avanti service makes sense as the Stafford & Stoke on Trent fast service. However, I'm not sure whether to split it at Crewe. From an operational point of view, it should be easier to operate, and changing to HS2 at Crewe would likely be much faster from North Wales. However, North Wales losing the direct service is politically untenable.

 

[InTheEastMids]

New Civil Engineer reports that (in a House of Lords debate), Peter Hendy...

"...admits new West Midlands to Crewe line may be ‘needed sooner’ than planned"

The article (link is below) has a quote about why the powers to retain the land purchased

the rail minister said the government has committed to maintaining the land it has already purchased on the route because “[it knows] that at some stage a railway will have to be built”.

It provides some update on its scope

probably not be a high speed railway... ... not a railway to the same specification of Phase 1

...and flexibility that it may be brought forward

It is clear that the West Coast Main Line is full of trains. There is no space left […] It is right for the government to think about the future and to plan to deliver this railway at a time when it is needed.

To me, "not a high speed railway" means <125mph. Why would you build something on the alignment of Ph2a, with brand new infrastructure and signalling, and then limit it to 200 km/h?

Well, I think "probably" is creating some wiggle room here. At this point, Govt cannot tolerate much association with "failed HS2". So by changing the delivery body (presumably to GBR), and descoping it a bit, they still have the space to build something that is >200km/h, that is to say "High speed, too" not "High Speed 2".

The other takeaway is the idea that it may be brought forward. I can see some good reasons for this

• Design work is presumably more mature
• The powers of the Ph2a Act to hold property can/should not be renewed indefinitely
• 2 decades of planning blight along the route is never going to win votes
• Focusing on the part near Colwich might allow a (temporary) solution to Handsacre capacity not too long after Ph1 opens fully.

Rail minister admits new West Midlands to Crewe line may be ‘needed sooner’ than planned | New Civil Engineer

Phase 2a of HS2 was intended to build a new high-speed railway between Birmingham and Crewe that would have alleviated considerable capacity constraints

www.newcivilengineer.com

 

[MatthewHutton]

The London-centric obsession ignores that not only would Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds been a fraction of the cost per mile, it would also have produced far more of a time saving too.

That should be the case. But if it was then the section from Birmingham to Crewe and Birmingham to East Midlands airport would have cost less than £5bn total and likely half that and would never have been cancelled.

To me, "not a high speed railway" means <125mph. Why would you build something on the alignment of Ph2a, with brand new infrastructure and signalling, and then limit it to 200 km/h?

You do want to do it to 300km/h and not 400km/h which was completely crackers and substantially increased costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==

I'd add a station at Coventry to clear the Coventry/Birmingham WCML corridor of current Avanti trains.

The difficultly south of Birmingham is that if you want to vaguely maintain speeds you are limited to a total of like 2 stations, and frankly as it stands Warwick Parkway on the A46 doesn’t perform particularly brilliantly (it’s less than Oxford Parkway which is a similar time from London) so it’s tough to argue an HS2 stop there would give you the best traffic. Especially as Interchange already exists.

 

[JamesT]

That should be the case. But if it was then the section from Birmingham to Crewe and Birmingham to East Midlands airport would have cost less than £5bn total and likely half that and would never have been cancelled.

You do want to do it to 300km/h and not 400km/h which was completely crackers and substantially increased costs.

You’ll need to show some working here. HS2 estimated the cost of the 400kph design was only 9% higher than a conventional (ie 125mph) railway. So the marginal cost of 400kph over 300kph would be minimal.
Many countries are already running services at speeds greater than 300kph, why should we be incapable of doing the same? Service speed for HS2 is ‘only’ 330kph.

 

[NCT]

You’ll need to show some working here. HS2 estimated the cost of the 400kph design was only 9% higher than a conventional (ie 125mph) railway. So the marginal cost of 400kph over 300kph would be minimal.

I'm not sure that holds anymore. My non-expert recollection is that (among other factors) the geotechnical requirements and hence cost of providing stability for 400km/h were far higher than anticipated. What we don't know is the marginal cost between 200km/h and 300km/h, and between 300km/h and 400km/h. If there is an exponential relationship (again, no geotechnical engineer here), then I suspect the first increment is worth it, but the second probably not.

 

[HSTEd]

Service speed for HS2 is ‘only’ 330kph.

Service speed doesn't really matter in capital cost terms, they designed a railway for 400kph and thus it costs what a 400kph railway costs, even if they then don't bother to use this capability.

The economic and operational experience of HSR operators abroad is that 360kph is barely worth it, let alone trying to go faster.

And over the short distances present in the UK [EDIT: or at least the parts of the UK with population density that can support a HSL), there seems precious little point in even trying.
Covering a kilometre in 10 seconds (360kph) rather than 12 (300kph) seems of limited value, and in any case such high design speeds actually cut against the stated objective of maximising capacity.

You just run out of country too fast.

 

[Trainman40083]

I find the whole subject utterly fascinating. We have the WCML very close to capacity AND the alternative, the M6. I see more rail freight interchanges being built, mostly Birmingham south. But the main reason Labour proposed HS2 as a Y remains valid. At some point, the mitigations such as digital signalling will also see the ECML and MML at full capacity. Express trains, dodging such as Thameslink. Very different markets. Manchester needs more local trains, so HS2/NPR has to go underneath. Leeds and various approaches must be close to capacity. The potential for more people to travel by rail must be huge. But the offering has to be right. All we seem to be seeing is "we can't afford to do it". But what is the cost of not doing it? Now I thought the wording of the recent announcement on the Northern section was interesting. The Government said "we will pay £46 billion". So if you want better, you are going to have to fund it, dear Mayors.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I'm not sure that holds anymore. My non-expert recollection is that (among other factors) the geotechnical requirements and hence cost of providing stability for 400km/h were far higher than anticipated. What we don't know is the marginal cost between 200km/h and 300km/h, and between 300km/h and 400km/h. If there is an exponential relationship (again, no geotechnical engineer here), then I suspect the first increment is worth it, but the second probably not.

I would assume given other countries have typically gone for 300km/h or 320km/h that the cost difference between 200 and 300 is relatively small but that the cost difference to a higher speed is larger.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==

And over the short distances present in the UK [EDIT: or at least the parts of the UK with population density that can support a HSL), there seems precious little point in even trying.

In many ways we are one of the smallest countries to do high speed rail. Obviously the Low Countries are much smaller, but their high speed lines mostly/additionally support international services.

London to the Scottish central belt is only 400 miles, but there are much longer distances than that in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, China, India etc.

Plus it would be very difficult to justify a high speed line north of Preston in the west or Newcastle in the east given what we already have.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==

Manchester needs more local trains, so HS2/NPR has to go underneath.

That capacity constraint is primarily in the very centre of Manchester. If there was more capacity in the centre you could fit more trains on the approaches.

This is why it’s most important to do the (should be) cheap extension north of Stafford and not to worry as much about the next bit.

 

[Trainman40083]

I would assume given other countries have typically gone for 300km/h or 320km/h that the cost difference between 200 and 300 is relatively small but that the cost difference to a higher speed is larger.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==


In many ways we are one of the smallest countries to do high speed rail. Obviously the Low Countries are much smaller, but their high speed lines mostly/additionally support international services.

London to the Scottish central belt is only 400 miles, but there are much longer distances than that in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, China, India etc.

Plus it would be very difficult to justify a high speed line north of Preston in the west or Newcastle in the east given what we already have.

I wonder what the cost difference is, over the longer term? Any railway over 125mph would have in cab signalling, like HS1. No lineside signals, cables , cable theft, lineside faults etc. All the toughing, installation, ongoing maintenance etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==

I would assume given other countries have typically gone for 300km/h or 320km/h that the cost difference between 200 and 300 is relatively small but that the cost difference to a higher speed is larger.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==


In many ways we are one of the smallest countries to do high speed rail. Obviously the Low Countries are much smaller, but their high speed lines mostly/additionally support international services.

London to the Scottish central belt is only 400 miles, but there are much longer distances than that in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, China, India etc.

Plus it would be very difficult to justify a high speed line north of Preston in the west or Newcastle in the east given what we already have.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==


That capacity constraint is primarily in the very centre of Manchester. If there was more capacity in the centre you could fit more trains on the approaches.

This is why it’s most important to do the (should be) cheap extension north of Stafford and not to worry as much about the next bit.

Could you fit that many more in, say between Stockport and Piccadilly?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Could you fit that many more in, say between Stockport and Piccadilly?

So there’s 4 tracks between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly and between 12 noon and 1pm tomorrow there are 13 trains in the northbound direction. So I would say yes.

It becomes much more difficult after where the Airport/Styall line comes in as that adds another 7 services I believe, but if your central Manchester tunnel started at that junction it would work.

South of Stockport you do have more stopping patterns but also more tracks - two towards Altrincham, two to Cheadle Hulme that then becomes four (I.e. two towards Stoke and two towards Crewe) and two in the Hope Valley.

Additionally the high speed line doesn’t have to end at Crewe for cost control reasons. It could continue, perhaps bypassing Crewe or from the other side of the Crewe station throat bypass the Crewe-Manchester line nearly as far as Alderley Edge or Adlington for example.

 

[Trainman40083]

So there’s 4 tracks between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly and between 12 noon and 1pm tomorrow there are 13 trains in the northbound direction. So I would say yes.

It becomes much more difficult after where the Airport/Styall line comes in as that adds another 7 services I believe, but if your central Manchester tunnel started at that junction it would work.

South of Stockport you do have more stopping patterns but also more tracks - two towards Altrincham, two to Cheadle Hulme that then becomes four (I.e. two towards Stoke and two towards Crewe) and two in the Hope Valley.

Just a few freight trains get thrown in the mix too.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Just a few freight trains get thrown in the mix too.

Sure, today in both directions between 6am and 6pm there were 8 passing Stockport.

 

[Trainman40083]

Sure, today in both directions between 6am and 6pm there were 8 passing Stockport.

I guess it gets fun when several trains start running late, necessitating waiting for platforms or changing platforms. The times I've caught trains from Manchester to Stockport it has seemed like the Wacky Races.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I guess it gets fun when several trains start running late, necessitating waiting for platforms or changing platforms. The times I've caught trains from Manchester to Stockport it has seemed like the Wacky Races.

But a big part of that is the 60 trains an hour in all directions that you are putting through the Manchester Piccadilly throat, or the capacity constraints south of Manchester that HS2 will address, especially if it is extended north of Stafford.

 

[Krokodil]

London to the Scottish central belt is only 400 miles, but there are much longer distances than that in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, China, India etc.

LGV Sud Est was 400km (250ish miles).

 

[MatthewHutton]

LGV Sud Est was 400km (250ish miles).

And that was just phase one. Paris-Marseille is nearly 500 miles, and they may yet extend the high speed line to Nice which is even further.