Just for fun - a new railway after HS2

[NCT]

The first project in the queue must be an extension of HS2 to Crewe. For the very reasons it was proposed in the first place!

Absolutely.

If that’s not the answer you want to hear, then my pet fantasy high speed line is a short section of new line from Elvanfoot to Abington, going straight through the hill in the way. Only about 7-8km (but would be the thick end of a billon quid given the terrain), however it would save two minutes (being a mile shorter and at 125 rather than the various lower speeds there) which means on a £cost per minute saved it is better than most HSL lines, and the existing line would be a very useful long semi-dynamic freight loop.

Yes, I do feel that, after full Y, further improvements to Anglo-Scottish timings would take this form of selective cut-offs on the WCML between Lancaster and Carstairs (and probably a Glasgow - Carstairs - Edinburgh Y once finances north of the border improves).

I'd do a similar thing between Lockerbie and Kirtlebridge, then possibly something between Penrith and Shap. My main pet project is Tebay to just north of Oxenholme.

I don't see the passenger market being bigger than 4tph (London - Edinburgh/Glasgow, 2x400m splitter, Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh 1tph200m alternating, Manchester - Glasgow/Edinburgh 1tph200m alternating). Those 4tph worth of passenger should hopefully generate enough benefits and revenue to pay for these cut-offs, and the resulting dynamic freight loops ought to solve the speed differential problems.

 

[The Ham]

HSGW - from Paddington taking an largely underground alignment south of the existing GWML, emerging onto the surface roughly west of Slough, then following the MR through Winnersh Junction, then
- continuing to south of Tadley with a branch towards Overton and Micheldever
- crossing the Barts and Hants just east of Pewsey with a connection
- crossing the Chippenham line just west of Wootton Bassett Junction with a connection
- joining the South Wales Main Line somewhere south of Malmesbury

Service wise the HSGW would carry 12tph
- 2tph Paddington - Southampton (potentially beyond to Bournemouth and Weymouth)
- 2tph Paddington - Salisbury (potentially with 1tph to Exeter), assuming the West of England line is electrified
- 2tph Paddington - Exeter and Cornwall assuming full electrification of the Barts and Hants and Cornish Main Line
- 2tph Paddington - Bristol via Chippenham
- 2tph Paddington - Bristol via Bristol Parkway
- 2tph Paddington - Cardiff (with 1tph to Swansea)

This allows the existing Main Lines on the Great Western to concentrate on outer suburban traffic at 20tph (might be a stretch and need some rationalisation)
- 4tph HEx
- 4tph first stop Slough then crossing to the Reliefs, all stations to Maidenhead
- 2tph first stop Maidenhead then all stops to Newbury (1tph extends to Westbury)
- 2tph first stop Maidenhead then all stops to Oxford
- 2tph Oxford fast calling at Reading only
- 4tph first stop Reading then all principal stations to Swindon, of which 1tph to Cheltenham, 2tph towards Chippenham, 1tph towards Cardiff

The Relief lines would be for the near exclusive use of Elizabeth line (other than freight) with all services calling at all stops, to Heathrow Terminals or Slough.

I've not worked what what the increased number of services means for station capacity at Bristol Temple Meads or Cardiff Central. Likely you'll have to accommodate the services at the existing Paddington terminal - the 12 HS services use platforms 1-6 (2 turnarounds per platform face per hour), and 20tph ML services use 7-14 (most service groups will need 4 turnarounds per hour per platform face). This means services restricted to British loading gauge and max 260m length trains. Finding space for a consistent 6-track formation between Paddington and ~Old Oak Common and a set of tunnel portals might be tricky. I've not decided whether the HSGW lines would have a station at Old Oak Common - it would certainly be desirable but could be tricky - might have to build it open cast on Wormwood Scrubs just south of North Pole Depot.

I'm not sure a direct line from London to Southampton and West could ever be filled, but for a detour of 50km you can go to Brighton and run down the South Coast, and then you'd get all the traffic you'd need to justify the cost.

Also a major simplification of service patterns on the classic railway once the traffic needs drop right off.

I do wonder if you could run to somewhere like Salisbury (heading already called at or near to Old Oak Common), then with upgrades and some new lines be able to run to:
- Bournemouth via Southampton (and Weymouth via the coast 1tph) 3tph
- Weymouth (via an inland route which would be the faster of the two) 1tph
- Bath/Bristol 3tph
- Wales 3tph
- Cornwall 2tph
- Reading via Basingstoke (basically replaces the stopping services between Basingstoke and Reading and pairs them with the existing services between Basingstoke and Salisbury) 2tph
- Frimley via a new grade separated junction to get to Farnborough Main and Basingstoke (see below for more details) 2tph

The last two would split at Salisbury as the key destitution is Basingstoke, but the extensions provide useful interconnectivity to connect with the new services through Salisbury.

That's 14tph on the new line to Salisbury so a reasonable frequency, yet with scope to add extras if there was other demand for it.

The last 2 would be brutally comparable journey time from Basingstoke to London due to faster line speeds, but exist mostly to provide a wider connection, however depending on London terminal location could give a comparable Farnborough to that station journey time.

The train going to Frimley is that so it allows a turn back on a line which is lightly used (2tph) but heading any further north would cause issues at the level crossing at Camberley. However would give it a direct train to London and much faster (and regular) than any direct trains or sees (or had seen).

Although if that level crossing issue at Camberley could be fixed a new local service (with extra stations) could be run Basingstoke to Ascot, which would give a metro service for a good chunk of the Aldershot Urban area as well as better connections to it (basically 4tph Ascot to Frimley and 4tph stoppers Basingstoke to Farnborough Main) rather than extending the via Salisbury services (although that could be extended to Camberley if that was viable).

 

[Shrop]

Probably not for journeys over 250miles though. Something like 70-75% of all car trips are under 5 miles, few of those will swap to rail. It would be interesting to know how many people travelling from within the M25 London / to, say, Newcastle or the Central Belt travel by car compared to air and rail (we have the air and rail data). Perhaps someone has access to the stats out there. For example I’d bet for Newcastle they could all be accommodated on a small handful of 9 car Azumas each way daily.

I confess to an apparent lack of eloquence - I can't seem to find the right words to convey the fact that my proposal for a HSR to Scotland makes the (apparently wildly optimistic) assumption that a lot of people would transfer from roads to railways.
As well as generating new traffic, just like new high quality roads and railways generally do.
Of course there aren't that many people who make journeys of over 250 miles by car, but then my new HSR wouldn't be dedicated to those journeys - after all only the French, Spanish and others have a public that want to make such journeys, it seems.
But no, I'm making two big assumptions here, firstly that my new HSR would also accommodate shorter trips, as I've said earlier in this thread. Not just the Leeds-Newcastle example I gave, but also something like Sheffield-Leicester (30 mins), and numerous other city pairs.
After all, while other countries preferred to focus on HSR being for dedicated trains only, weren't the UK so quick to squeeze other trains on to HS1 when it was first opened? So no, we don't need to despair about only being able to justify 2tph on my new HSR.
And secondly, I'm making the assumption that a new high quality railway will generate a lot of demand. Which is why the present ECML has much higher loadings for the populations it serves, than might otherwise be expected, in comparison with MML.
It's about generating growth outside London, but also to and from London, not just defaulting to existing data and believing that the world ends there

 

[Austriantrain]

I confess to an apparent lack of eloquence - I can't seem to find the right words to convey the fact that my proposal for a HSR to Scotland makes the (apparently wildly optimistic) assumption that a lot of people would transfer from roads to railways.
As well as generating new traffic, just like new high quality roads and railways generally do.
Of course there aren't that many people who make journeys of over 250 miles by car, but then my new HSR wouldn't be dedicated to those journeys - after all only the French, Spanish and others have a public that want to make such journeys, it seems.
But no, I'm making two big assumptions here, firstly that my new HSR would also accommodate shorter trips, as I've said earlier in this thread. Not just the Leeds-Newcastle example I gave, but also something like Sheffield-Leicester (30 mins), and numerous other city pairs.
After all, while other countries preferred to focus on HSR being for dedicated trains only, weren't the UK so quick to squeeze other trains on to HS1 when it was first opened? So no, we don't need to despair about only being able to justify 2tph on my new HSR.
And secondly, I'm making the assumption that a new high quality railway will generate a lot of demand. Which is why the present ECML has much higher loadings for the populations it serves, than might otherwise be expected, in comparison with MML.
It's about generating growth outside London, but also to and from London, not just defaulting to existing data and believing that the world ends there

Still, if the Eastern leg of HS2 ever materialised, you would have quite enough capacity on the classic railway to serve the city pairs you mention with high frequency and short journey times. Even from Leicester. So the focus should be on that, not on plans for another new line.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Written in the 'just for fun' spirit, my choice would be a replacement / second Severn Tunnel providing a more direct link between Cardiff and Bristol. Fun being fun, I guess the portals could be at Cardiff Central and Temple Meads but, being very slightly more realistic, maybe Goldcliff - Portishead or Lavernock - Weston would do the trick!

 

[Shrop]

Still, if the Eastern leg of HS2 ever materialised, you would have quite enough capacity on the classic railway to serve the city pairs you mention with high frequency and short journey times. Even from Leicester. So the focus should be on that, not on plans for another new line.

But what part of "generating new traffic" do you (and others) not understand?

For many decades, traffic and transport modellers in the UK have had a blind spot when it comes to traffic growth. I've commented on earlier threads that the Highways Dept of Worcestershire County Council pleaded with the Department of Transport in the early 1960s, to build the M5 motorway as 3 lanes, only to be over-ruled by "those who knew better". As we know, huge amounts of money were spent later, to widen the M5 to 3 lanes through Worcestershire ... and then huge amounts more were spent to widen it to 4 lanes.

It's not very different with railways, ie. provide the capacity in a quality manner and the services will fill, for the simple reason that human nature decrees that a lot of people like to live a certain distance (in time) from where they work, and they are very much prepared to travel accordingly. The same follows with leisure travel - millions of people want to travel to and explore many places simply because they can, and because the travel facilities permit them to do so.

A century ago these distances weren't very far, but people have increasingly travelled further simply, as I say, because they can. If you'd only built railways and roads a century ago to cater for existing demand, then progress would have been very slow. And yes, we've often done just that, but we can't be only reactive and nothing else, we have to be proactive too. If we're not then we get left behind, as we can see from the railway systems in many other countries.

If as a country we really don't want to improve links to and between northern cities, then okay, let's just leave things alone and tie ourselves in permanent knots with slow progress. Sad really - sometimes I think a good many people on this forum want our slow London-centric progress and little else.

 

[TheGrew]

For me, it would be the electrification of the entire Cross Country network (effectively electric spine++), any other sensible infill electrification, and key freight corridors.

 

[The Mercian]

1) HS2 to Crewe

2) Birmingham CrossRail in effect 4 tracking Rugby to Stafford.

3) Bit left field and very rarely mentioned but utilising the old HS2 Eastern alignment to create a direct line between Birmingham and Nottingham and not having to go via Derby or Leicester. The added benefit is you could put a sub surface station directly under East Mids Airport rather than the current avoiding alignment. A few spurs on the Trent Triangle and you’ve got direct links from pretty much everywhere in the East Mids into East Midlands airport.

4) creating a spur from the Snow Hill line through Soho area of north Brum to connect the Walsall lines to Snow Hill and Moor St to create a second Cross City Line Rugeley to Redditch

 

[STINT47]

Crossrail 2 in London. It can be funded by canceling the Northern powerhouse work, which can be announced just after a general election.

 

[CMS1]

I think a high speed line to the West is a good idea that’s not talked enough

The realistic option is to use all the hard & expensive work already done at the London end, i.e. the miles of tunnels, OOC Station & Euston Station, and branch off at Aylesbury. If going via Oxford & Swindon & join the GWML at Wooton Bassett it nicely avoids the Chilterns, North Wessex Downs & Cotswolds. Instead of tunnelling to Oxford city like my previous version, there could be a high level Oxford Parkway station straddling the lines to Worcester, Banbury and EWR, with platforms on each. And also a better railhead location just off the M40. You could also shave off either Yate/Filton or Bath as shown in yellow to speed up London-Bristol, but probably not worth it given the popularity of both Bristol Parkway & Bath.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

It's also only 50 miles long, but unlocks a huge amount of capacity and journey time reductions

 

[Topological]

The realistic option is to use all the hard & expensive work already done at the London end, i.e. the miles of tunnels, OOC Station & Euston Station, and branch off at Aylesbury. If going via Oxford & Swindon & join the GWML at Wooton Bassett it nicely avoids the Chilterns & Cotswolds. Instead of tunnelling to Oxford city like my previous version, there could be a high level Oxford Parkway station straddling the lines to Worcester, Banbury and EWR, with platforms on each. And also a better railhead location just off the M40. You could also shave off either Yate/Filton or Bath as shown in yellow to speed up London-Bristol, but probably not worth it given the popularity of both Bristol Parkway & Bath.

View attachment 200984

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

It's also only 50 miles long, but unlocks a huge amount of capacity and journey time reductions

This is an excellent plan.

Would need some investment in Chipping Sodbury to correct the flooding there though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

It does go through the Chilterns though. So I do see that going North of Oxford may save some tunnels. You would likely need tunnels on many of the other stretches though. I do not think that tunnels should be a barrier to building.

I like the idea of making Cardiff via Bristol, rather than Severn Tunnel Junction though. I do worry that you are then crawling along an important section. Maybe call it Phase 1c to build the new, longer, Severn tunnel.

 

[Pigeon]

Written in the 'just for fun' spirit, my choice would be a replacement / second Severn Tunnel providing a more direct link between Cardiff and Bristol. Fun being fun, I guess the portals could be at Cardiff Central and Temple Meads but, being very slightly more realistic, maybe Goldcliff - Portishead or Lavernock - Weston would do the trick!

Eh, I'd build a bridge instead of the tunnel - which is what I think the GWR should have done in the first place. At the very latest when they found they couldn't handle the groundwater pressure if they just blocked the Great Spring off, instead of deciding on a permanent bodge.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Maybe not quite as exciting as some of the suggestions here, but what about electrifying pretty much all of the network?

It is very backward nowadays that we have diesels running into major cities and running busy services between them. Comprehensive electrification emits fewer fumes, is better for the environment, is less noisy, is more comfortable to travel on, has superior acceleration and performance, is proven to be more popular with travellers…and is less vulnerable to a bunch of evil old men going at it in the Middle East .

Due to our population distribution, it would be uneconomic to electrify every line, and naturally these lines would largely be clustered in the more rural regions of the country. On unelectrified branch lines, I would use battery trains, with chargers installed at depots/terminals and wireless rapid chargers at intermediate stations. For longer-distance trains, bi-modes, potentially powered by renewable fuels such as liquified biogas, could be used. There would be no unelectrified running under the wires; anything travelling off them would be bi-mode.

Here is a list of lines I would not electrify; I would electrify everything else:

-Far North
-Kyle of Lochalsh
-Aberdeen to Inverness
-Dunblane to Inverness
-Perth to Dundee
-West Highland
-Borders
-Maybole to Stranraer
-Kilmarnock to Carlisle
-Cumbrian Coast
-Carlisle to Hexham
-Conway Valley
-Craven Arms to Llanelli
-Newport to Shrewsbury
-Shrewsbury to west Wales
-Weston-super-Mare to Penzance
-St. Erth to St. Ives
-Par to Newquay
-Truro to Falmourh
-Liskeard to Looe
-Plymouth to Gunnislake
-Exeter to Barnstaple/Okehampton
-Basingstoke to Exeter
-Castle Cary to Weymouth
-Bath-Westbury-Salisbury-Redbridge
-Newbury to Taunton
-Oxford to Worcester
-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich
-Norwich to Sheringham/Cromer/ Yarmouth/Lowestoft
-Ipswich to Lowestoft/Felixstowe
-Skipton to Carnforth
-Beverley to Scarborough
-York to Scarborugh
-Nunthorpe to Whitby
-Peterborough-Sleaford-Lincoln
-Nottingham to Skegness
-Lincoln to Barnetby

This would leave a substantial proportion of mileage unelectrified, but almost all journeys would be on electrified trains, or at least on bi-modes running off electric.

I realise that large swathes of the West Country, in particular, would remain unelectrified in this scenario, but essentially, if one was to electrify west of Weston-super-Mare, one would have to electrify as far as Penzance to make it worthwhile, and the cost of doing so would be excessive.

 

[NCT]

I confess to an apparent lack of eloquence - I can't seem to find the right words to convey the fact that my proposal for a HSR to Scotland makes the (apparently wildly optimistic) assumption that a lot of people would transfer from roads to railways.
As well as generating new traffic, just like new high quality roads and railways generally do.
Of course there aren't that many people who make journeys of over 250 miles by car, but then my new HSR wouldn't be dedicated to those journeys - after all only the French, Spanish and others have a public that want to make such journeys, it seems.
But no, I'm making two big assumptions here, firstly that my new HSR would also accommodate shorter trips, as I've said earlier in this thread. Not just the Leeds-Newcastle example I gave, but also something like Sheffield-Leicester (30 mins), and numerous other city pairs.
After all, while other countries preferred to focus on HSR being for dedicated trains only, weren't the UK so quick to squeeze other trains on to HS1 when it was first opened? So no, we don't need to despair about only being able to justify 2tph on my new HSR.
And secondly, I'm making the assumption that a new high quality railway will generate a lot of demand. Which is why the present ECML has much higher loadings for the populations it serves, than might otherwise be expected, in comparison with MML.
It's about generating growth outside London, but also to and from London, not just defaulting to existing data and believing that the world ends there

Can you give French, Spanish or other examples of equivalent Sheffield - Leicester journeys (in terms of city populations and distances) in 30 minutes?

 

[Shrop]

Can you give French, Spanish or other examples of equivalent Sheffield - Leicester journeys (in terms of city populations and distances) in 30 minutes

A very quick search shows Lyon to Valence takes 35mins, which is about the same distance.

But Valence is a lot smaller than either, which suggests that there should be a greater case for such a service in the UK.

Oh, Marseille to Avignon is a similar distance too, taking 27mins.

 

[NCT]

A very quick search shows Lyon to Valence takes 35mins, which is about the same distance.

But Valence is a lot smaller than either, which suggests that there should be a greater case for such a service in the UK.

To a nowheresville parkway station, and only half a dozen trains a day to Lyon Part Dieu - Valence TGV.

The actual useful Lyon Part Dieu - Valence Ville service is the hourly TER taking 1h8m. Sheffield - Derby Leicester is twice an hour at 53-63 minutes.

- Montpellier - Avignon - hourly 1h12m

Looking elsewhere in Europe
- Leipzig - Dresden - hourly fast trains taking 1h3m-1h13m (though ongoing works are meant to reduce that to around 45 minutes)
- Bremen - Hanover - hourly fast trains taking 59-64m
- Utrecht - Eindhoven - 6tph taking 50 minutes

So Sheffield - Leicester is already comfortably mid-table. Pretty much all these examples are on conventional lines of 160-200km/h. Utrecht - Eindhoven gets the frequency due to carrying Amsterdam traffic. Leicester - Sheffield has a perfectly reasonable journey time, and what it's lacking is capacity and electrification, which are relatively easy to solve.

In a full HS2 world those Sheffield - Leicester trains won't have Sheffield/Derby - London passengers, and there's a lot of train lengthening potential from the current 5-car workings.

If HS2 eastern leg goes for a certain configuration with an East Midlands Parkway interchange, then that would provide additional travel opportunities. In my post HS2 world Leicester - EMP would be 4tph, and EMP - Sheffield on HS2 would also probably be 4tph, so in the half-hour gap between the direct services via Derby a non-overtaken via EMP journey option should be available with a sensible interchange time at EMP.

Leicester - Sheffield is already mid table - full Class 810 deployment should alleviate the current capacity crunch. Full HS2 would bring that journey to top table.

 

[BRX]

That in of itself would be a hugely disruptive scheme, and even a classic 25kV railway would get crushed by a new line.

If there was a line running London (Waterloo maybe?)-Clapham Junction-Gatwick-Brighton-to the West you'd be able to make the Brighton Main Line into a purely Thameslink Affair. Save 10 paths per hour at least just to Victoria.
Plus many of the fasts on the SWML and all the peak extras to Littlehampton etc.

And it'd still have enough capacity to eat up everything west of Bournemouth if you wanted.

What's the logic behind making this the "fast" route to the southwest? Isn't it going to be tangled up in the south downs most of the way - and threading through a lot of quite populated areas if it's going to have useful stops?

 

[m0ffy]

Luton - Dunstable - Leighton Buzzard

Rip up the busway, provide a new link from MML to WCML, and reinstate a rail connection between the area’s major population centres. The people of Dunstable deserve better than the X66 bus to Milton Keynes.

 

[Topological]

To a nowheresville parkway station, and only half a dozen trains a day to Lyon Part Dieu - Valence TGV.

The actual useful Lyon Part Dieu - Valence Ville service is the hourly TER taking 1h8m. Sheffield - Derby is twice an hour at 53-63 minutes.

Small piece of pedantry, but did you mean Leicester here.

Sheffield to Derby does not take that long and is 4* tph (Depending if the 2nd CrossCountry is running)

 

[NCT]

Small piece of pedantry, but did you mean Leicester here.

Sheffield to Derby does not take that long and is 4* tph (Depending if the 2nd CrossCountry is running)

Of course I do ... !!

 

[Topological]

Of course I do ... !!

As a former regular user of the Sheffield-Leicester services, I do see that the current offering is a massive improvement on when I was first making the journey. Some savings would be nice, as would better connectivity with any HS line. I do not think that HS needs to serve Leicester. However, it would be good to still have some Leicester to London only taking 1 hour / 1 hour 10 minutes.

(I am old enough to have found it cool that some HST services did not stop and did the journey in just over an hour. Most in the half-hourly MML timetable Intercity Shuttle days did have stops)

 

[NCT]

As a former regular user of the Sheffield-Leicester services, I do see that the current offering is a massive improvement on when I was first making the journey. Some savings would be nice, as would better connectivity with any HS line. I do not think that HS needs to serve Leicester. However, it would be good to still have some Leicester to London only taking 1 hour / 1 hour 10 minutes.

(I am old enough to have found it cool that some HST services did not stop and did the journey in just over an hour. Most in the half-hourly MML timetable Intercity Shuttle days did have stops)

The current Leicester - London timetable is pretty good, with 2tph non-stop and 2tph stopping twice and connecting into the Corby at Kettering. If the same timetable is maintained after HS2 eastern leg then having Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield - London migrating away would represent a significant capacity boost for Leicester - London passengers.

A good East Midlands passenger interface between the MML and HS2 would be very useful, and either of EMP or Toton can be made to work.

 

[Topological]

Another pedantry point which seems not to have reared its' ugly head here is that EMP is Emerson Park

If it were up to me I would be constructing one of the new towns around the East Midlands Parkway, Junction 24 - Junction 26 M1 corridor. Yes it has flood plain, but with some decent work you could make more of the land between Kegworth and Loughborough for flood control. There is still the Attenborough and Beeston plains as well. The trent could be controlled more in the West too. Ultimately, we need to design towns and infrastructure together. Being scared off by the costs of the necessary flood work makes no sense.

I think bringing all that together you have a very strong case for HS2 East.

 

[The Ham]

Crossrail 2 in London. It can be funded by canceling the Northern powerhouse work, which can be announced just after a general election.

Crossrail 2 (CR2) is needed, however I'd argue that not at the expense of NPR.

Whilst many on here will be aware of the 8tph from Waterloo to places south and west of Woking which CR2 facilities, basically could make the SWML a 3tph service frequency rather than 2tph service frequency.

Whilst it doesn't sound like much, it means that for many services it pushes it to just about a turn up and go frequency (20 minutes between services). For the line to/through Guildford it could see 6tph rather than the current 4tph.

The big issue would be that there would be other capacity constraints. For example to get a 3rd train to Weymouth you'd either be looking at a lot of work between Basingstoke and Bournemouth (and electrification upgrades to Weymouth) or between Yeovil and Dorchester.

Although the latter could be fairly simple by reinstating the junction from Yeovil junction to the line to Dorchester (although this is much easier for the southbound services) and by adding a loop at Chetnole (although probably not adding a second platform and just alternating which service, that being northbound or southbound, calls at the platform). Pair this with utilising the loop at Maiden Newton (which has two platform) which would give trains chance to pass at points at 1/3 and 2/3 along the line.

 

[NCT]

For the love of all that's holy please no new 20-minute patterns.

 

[The Ham]

For the love of all that's holy please no new 20-minute patterns.

Why not, given that the line would be subject to a significant timetable recast which would change the impact compared to previous examples?

 

[HSTEd]

What's the logic behind making this the "fast" route to the southwest? Isn't it going to be tangled up in the south downs most of the way - and threading through a lot of quite populated areas if it's going to have useful stops?

Construction in much of the the south of England is probably going to have to be in tunnels anyway, which makes surface terrain becomes much less important. All thats left is gathering up as much traffic as possible.

You have to weigh the cost of the extra stations and distance against the potential for major simplifications of existing operations and/or capacity relief.

EDIT:
Whichever route we chose will need significant tunnneling, whether iti s the M3 corridor direct to Southampton, or the M23/similar south to Brighton and along the coast. You'd be in Fleet before you can get into the open

 

[The Ham]

Construction in much of the the south of England is probably going to have to be in tunnels anyway, which makes surface terrain becomes much less important. All thats left is gathering up as much traffic as possible.

You have to weigh the cost of the extra stations and distance against the potential for major simplifications of existing operations and/or capacity relief.

EDIT:
Whichever route we chose will need significant tunnneling, whether iti s the M3 corridor direct to Southampton, or the M23/similar south to Brighton and along the coast. You'd be in Fleet before you can get into the open

Indeed, and many of those useful stops (for example Portsmouth) are places you'd ideally serve if you were run to the west rather than the south of London. As such you'd be spending money to access them anyway (as the current infrastructure wouldn't likely facilitate extra or longer trains).

It does lead to the interesting question, if you're tunneling to serve Portsmouth, could you not divert the tunnel a little to also serve the Isle of Wight?

Bearing in mind that you really could charge a premium on train tickets to there given the high cost of ferry travel. Although even ignoring that (with competition the ferry prices would reduce) the cost savings from not having to maintain the pier could be significant over time (in that it would likely need a rebuild at some point).

Probably still not enough to cover the costs for an extra 35km (?) of tunnel (bearing in mind that I'm thinking that it may well be the whole line goes that way, rather than messing around with it being on a spur, although serving it by every train through there would likely be slightly overkill) and a box station however it would be an interesting option to consider.

 

[Mgameing123]

It's pretty safe to assume that HS2 will be completed to Birmingham and provide some benefits for Manchester.

But if (okay a BIG if) there was both public and political support for significant further rail investment, what might be a reasonable next project?

Forgetting the rest of HS2 or NPR.

How about a HS3

Full route: Old Oak Common - Newport Wales via Heathrow, Reading, Bristol and New Severn Tunnel.

Phase 1 Old Oak Common - Reading via Heathrow.

Phase 1 will help move trains off the Great Western Mainline and provide high speed rail connections from the West Country to Heathrow. This will also allow more Elizabeth Line services on the relief line because freight and GWR relief services can be moved fully into the main line.

Phase 2: Reading - Bristol

Phase 2 will help speed up journey times from Bristol to London.

Phase 3: Bristol - Newport - (Cardiff and Beyond)
- Phase 3 will help speed up journey times between London and Cardiff.
- Provides faster and better services between Cardiff and Bristol since trains now can serve 2 cities instead of just one.

What you guys think?

 

[Shrop]

Forgetting the rest of HS2 or NPR.

How about a HS3

Full route: Old Oak Common - Newport Wales via Heathrow, Reading, Bristol and New Severn Tunnel.

Phase 1 Old Oak Common - Reading via Heathrow.

Phase 1 will help move trains off the Great Western Mainline and provide high speed rail connections from the West Country to Heathrow. This will also allow more Elizabeth Line services on the relief line because freight and GWR relief services can be moved fully into the main line.

Phase 2: Reading - Bristol

Phase 2 will help speed up journey times from Bristol to London.

Phase 3: Bristol - Newport - (Cardiff and Beyond)
- Phase 3 will help speed up journey times between London and Cardiff.
- Provides faster and better services between Cardiff and Bristol since trains now can serve 2 cities instead of just one.

What you guys think?

Interesting that you propose faster services to Bristol and South Wales. I've lamented for years on this forum, that even after electrification, London-Cardiff is slower than it was almost 50 (yes FIFTY) years ago!
I've always been shouted down by those who say that stopping all trains more often is more important than Cardiff getting a premium service.
I've also, even in this thread, had people saying there just isn't the market for long distance non stop services in the UK.
So how do you think that a new route to Cardiff could be justified? Perhaps you can present a case better than I can. Good luck!