HS2 Reset: Evidence to Transport Committee - 9 July 2025 "Total overspend on high-speed rail could be as much as 100%"

[Technologist]

There's a reason that the Bakerloo Line ends at Harrow rather than carrying on all-stops to Glasgow.

So any supposed time savings from this wacky new idea are obliterated by the fact that anyone who wants a cup of tea or to go to the toilet must get off (with all of their possessions) and do so at a station, just like on the Victorian railways? You're expecting people to travel to Scotland like this?

I don't want to be 40km from where I was. I want to be in the big city 400km away and I see no need to stop at every town on the way. I just cannot fathom the mentality behind this idea. How big do you think Milton Keynes and Luton are? If the conurbations of London, Birmingham, Manchester and the Scottish Central Belt are populous enough to fill pairs of 895s running between them, why on earth should we also stop them at every town on the way?

You are a very combative poster to be hanging out in speculative discussions.

The longest tube line is the central line which takes 1 hour 35min to go end to end, in that time period our super BEMU could have gone from London to Newcastle. They could get off the train at York, have a piss, a meal, walk about get back on the train 20 minutes later and then re-board the train and get to Edinburgh 1 hour faster than the fastest train we have today.

The point is that the national metro makes most of the country commutable to each other, these intermediate stops can then be developed to high density developments because they are 20-30 minutes away from the centre of Manchester, Birmingham or London.

 

[HSTEd]

There's a reason that the Bakerloo Line ends at Harrow rather than carrying on all-stops to Glasgow.

So any supposed time savings from this wacky new idea are obliterated by the fact that anyone who wants a cup of tea or to go to the toilet must get off (with all of their possessions) and do so at a station, just like on the Victorian railways? You're expecting people to travel to Scotland like this?

I'm not as aggressive as Technologist in that I see the future as being the Class 185 rather than the literal tube.... but I don't see catering as really that important. The majority of passengers, even on longer routes, don't seem to buy much from the trolley or the buffet in my (admittedly limited) experience.

How big do you think Milton Keynes and Luton are? If the conurbations of London, Birmingham, Manchester and the Scottish Central Belt are populous enough to fill pairs of 895s running between them, why on earth should we also stop them at every town on the way?

Because running diverse stopping patterns reduce capacity, and with high acceleration units, do not gain much in travel time.
There is one pair of tracks north of Preston - which means capacity is optimised with one stopping pattern.

EDIT:

To put a value on the importance of catering I checked the financial statistics. "Other Operator Income" for West Coast is around £71.4m per year, this includes onboard catering, car parking and such (Elizabeth Line makes ~£25m and I am not sure they even operate car parks?).
They have 34.9 million passengers a year, approximately, for 6.6bn passenger kilometres.

Roughly £2.05 per passenger journey in other income, or about a penny per passenger kilometre. A 400km journey would be a princely ~£4.00

I think a big chunk of that is likely to be car parking charges.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to catering but I think allowing it to drive service optimisation is a mistake. This is a rather small island at the end of the day and a very large fraction of people live in the southern half of it.

 

[JamesT]

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...ts-the-details-shaping-hs2s-new-trains-83048/ appears to be an article on a mockup of how the interior of a class 895 will be.

The standard class buffet counter has been redesigned in a few places to make it easier for staff to move around each other, and some of the facilities, such as the sink and shelving, were shuffled a bit to improve the space.

The premium galley, with its kitchen, also got a lot of attention. Some surprising changes are planned, such as making the oven about 2cm smaller. It turns out that the shelf next to the oven would be much more useful if it were just 2cm wider, allowing it to accept one of the larger catering trays that usually have to go somewhere else. Likewise, the hot food trolley storage spaces were tweaked to make slotting in the trolleys easier for the staff.

So if there isn't going to be any catering on these trains, has anyone told the designers?

 

[Peter Sarf]

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...ts-the-details-shaping-hs2s-new-trains-83048/ appears to be an article on a mockup of how the interior of a class 895 will be.

So if there isn't going to be any catering on these trains, has anyone told the designers?

I learnt my lesson thirty odd years ago. Relying on the on board catering is a risk as it is too unreliable and expensive anyway. So I never rely on it, preferring to pay less for stuff bought at/near the departure station or sandwiches made the night before. So once on the train the on board catering is pointless for me.

Apart from that I can see the point of a metro style frequency and acceleration - but its not for me. If it makes the competition cheaper (hello LNWR my old friend) then all to the good !.

 

[weeklycommuter]

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...ts-the-details-shaping-hs2s-new-trains-83048/ appears to be an article on a mockup of how the interior of a class 895 will be.

So if there isn't going to be any catering on these trains, has anyone told the designers?

I did send feedback which included "Please drop the cafe bar, use the space for more two plus two seating and for any services which require catering provide a trolley service.". I would expect no catering for the Old Oak Common and Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street services which will take less than an hour and will account for most if not all the Class 895 usage. Catering is never provided or expected on train services of similar duration anywhere in the South East of England. Anyone who wants food or drink brings it on to the train with them.

SWR made clear they dropped catering and will not bring it back because it did not pay and their mainline services are up to three hours long. I am not surprised that it did not pay because when a trolley service was provided I saw very few people use it. Even with public ownership passenger train services are a business and an operational profit will be expected where possible to offset the very large annual payments from taxpayers to support the railway infrastructure. Even Great British Railways will not provide a catering service at a loss.

 

[Krokodil]

You are a very combative poster to be hanging out in speculative discussions.

There's "speculative" and there's "crayonista". Or is the idea of this section that you can post the most outlandish scheme your imagination can come up with and we're all forbidden from pointing out its (obvious) flaws?

The longest tube line is the central line which takes 1 hour 35min to go end to end, in that time period our super BEMU could have gone from London to Newcastle

Next to no one goes end-to-end on the Central Line. Lots of people however go from London to Newcastle, and more still go to Edinburgh.

but I don't see catering as really that important. The majority of passengers, even on longer routes, don't seem to buy much from the trolley or the buffet in my (admittedly limited) experience.

How about the toilets?

Because running diverse stopping patterns reduce capacity,

They do. But why do any of these new trains need to stop at Milton Keynes when there is an existing line which can serve it just fine, particularly?

 

[The Ham]

The concept is "blistering" acceleration for 90 seconds, hold for 3-5 minutes, decelerate at the same rate, open doors for 90 seconds. You are now 40km away from where you just were. We use this to functionally turn most of the UK city centres into one commutable area and within 1 hour or so you can get from London to Manchester.

So not much different (maybe circa 12 minutes) for the 1:08 London Manchester using HS2, as such as a trail it's likely to be possible to see if increasing the frequency to (say) 10tph would see rail use grow.

Of course that would likely need capacity upgrades, however could be done with the planned trains.

I suspect that just faster acceleration isn't going to gain that much whist offering multiple other stops as to get to 56 minutes the average speed would need to be circa 175mph, 4 additional station stops of 1 minute would raise the required average speed to circa 193mph - that's getting very close to the expected in service linespeed (as 225 was always for delay recovery).

 

[HSTEd]

How about the toilets?

As I noted, I envisage something like a Class 185 - which has toilets.

I don't cleave to a literal tube train interior, but the metro philosophy is something I very much agree with.

They do. But why do any of these new trains need to stop at Milton Keynes when there is an existing line which can serve it just fine, particularly?

In this hypothetical super train future, the existing like will probably be chock-a-block with trains of its own, especially if we do want to keep any freight around.

 

[gravitystorm]

There was another session of evidence to the Transport Select Committee yesterday, and the video is available at

It's around 2.5 hours of Mark Wild, Peter Hendy and Dean Creamer (Director-General at DfT and SRO for HS2) being questioned by MPs so they covered a lot of ground. Some points I found interesting:

• Mark Wild confirmed the "reset" is still ongoing, and is not expected to be complete until February 2027
• Contract renegotiations with the main civils JVs are still ongoing
• The main thing affecting the range of opening year, is the weather for the next 3 years during "earthworks season". The railway systems stage is expected to be more "factory like" and predictable scheduling.
• Peter Hendy mentioned testing rolling stock on HS1 as a possibility now that it's only 320kph
• Rumours of an imminent change to the rolling stock contract are not well-founded, although it was mentioned that it was strange to have cancelled Phase 2A without having considered that contract.
• There's some sort of outline agreement at Euston for the overall spatial plan, and that there will be one concourse for both sides of the station. But it still sounds to me like it's quite early-stage for design there.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Top speed is dropped to 320kph, which I think has been widely expected. This is forecast to save "between £1 billion and £2.5 billion" by "reducing testing and commissioning time". I can believe that 360kph testing and commissioning was a big red question mark in the schedule. But there's nothing really discussing what is lost in doing this, and whether it will be a permanent loss of top speed or something that could be revisited by future generations e.g. during fleet renewals.

The following in the HS2 May 2026 update states that reducing the maximum operating speed from 360kph to 320kph will add three minutes to the journey time between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street increasing this from 42 minutes to 45 minutes.

AIUI HS2 trains will leave Old Oak Common around 7 minutes after leaving Euston so that would increase the journey time between Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street from 49 minutes to 52 minutes.

I read somewhere that HS2 trains will take 9 minutes from Birmingham Interchange to Birmingham Curzon Street so I assume that reducing the maximum operating speed from 360kph to 320kph increases the journey time between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange from 33 minutes to 36 minutes.

HS2 distances in km are stated in the following Railway codes website extract. This shows the distance between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange to be 148km. The average speed between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange therefore works out at about 269kph for 33 minutes and about 247kph for 36 minutes. I assume the difference between the average speed and the maximum operating speed is because the trains have to accelerate to maximum speed at the start and decelerate to a halt when arriving at each station.

HS2 Project Update

Latest HS2 project updates and construction progress. Read about recent milestones, current developments, and what's happening across the high-speed rail network.

www.hs2.org.uk

Why will HS2 trains run at a lower speed than originally planned?
We are proposing a package of changes to simplify the railway – increasing the likelihood of opening the railway as early as possible and at the lowest reasonable cost. These changes include marginally reducing the maximum operating speed from 360kph to 320kph.
This would bring HS2 into line with the maximum operating speed of trains elsewhere in Europe and allow the trains to be tested on existing lines while HS2’s infrastructure is completed. It also avoids many of the risks associated with certifying a railway at a speed not operated anywhere in the world.
Journey times are barely altered at 320kph compared with 360kph, adding only three minutes (45 versus 42 minutes) on the journey between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street.

HS2 mileages

Engineer's Line References: HS2

www.railwaycodes.org.uk

HS2 main line
0.000 EUSTON
9.075 OLD OAK COMMON
156.664 BIRMINGHAM INTERCHANGE
192.949 Handsacre Junction with LEC2 (mean) (mileage unknown)
HS2 Birmingham spur
175.654 BIRMINGHAM CURZON STREET

 

[RichardAsh1981]

Don't think it has been posted here already, but Ian Visits has a piece based on the select committee appearance noting thatthe plan for 360km/h was based upon ATO which is not available off the shelf, where as 320km/h will now be delivered using standard ETCS. This is obviously going to take a lot of testing risk out.

htitps://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2s-original-plan-relied-on-a-railway-signalling-system-that-didnt-exist-89830/

 

[The Ham]

Don't think it has been posted here already, but Ian Visits has a piece based on the select committee appearance noting thatthe plan for 360km/h was based upon ATO which is not available off the shelf, where as 320km/h will now be delivered using standard ETCS. This is obviously going to take a lot of testing risk out.

htitps://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2s-original-plan-relied-on-a-railway-signalling-system-that-didnt-exist-89830/

Indeed, however (like for the testing of the actual trains at the higher speeds) this is something which could be added back in at a later date if it was justified.

As such, it's a sensible cut to make as it's not one which bakes in additional costs or future limits.

The changing of the contract for the rolling stock when there's the mechanism to use the 390 replacement to fix the issue with the 200m trains is an example where that will bake in extra costs for no benefit. Especially when the reduced journey times means you can fit more trains in the operation hours of the railway.

In that the first train leaving Manchester at the same time arrives to London 30 minutes sooner and with the last train arriving to Manchester at the same time as it currently does meansthat it's leaving London 30 minutes later than currently gives you 60 minutes of extra train services whilst still giving track maintenance access of broadly the same time. That allows up to 3 extra services a day, so likely 2 to ensure that track access for maintenance time is maintained, which means in the short term there's still some small increases in capacity in the morning peak and evening (post commuting) period, two times when passenger numbers are high.

 

[SynthD]

Don't think it has been posted here already, but Ian Visits has a piece based on the select committee appearance noting thatthe plan for 360km/h was based upon ATO which is not available off the shelf, where as 320km/h will now be delivered using standard ETCS. This is obviously going to take a lot of testing risk out.

htitps://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2s-original-plan-relied-on-a-railway-signalling-system-that-didnt-exist-89830/

Similar was true for Crossrail. The turnback at Paddington and the integration with existing signalling systems at both ends were newly invented for the line. What about high speed ATO is such an difficult invention? Maybe only proving it is slow. I’m in no rush to have it from the start, so hopefully it is just a delayed creation.

 

[fishwomp]

whilst still giving track maintenance access of broadly the same time.

Now there's a thought. What happens when a blockade is needed.. I know this is like "but it's built to last" so it shouldn't need changing.. but between Birmingham and London I think it's fair to expect at least the odd road needs to be widened or new road built which has to span HS2..

As there are absolutely no alternative routes and junctions (bar the depot at Calvert) as a design choice, and because the capacity will be already taken on the classic lines..

What happens? You have a bus replacement all the way from Birmingham to London?

.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Now there's a thought. What happens when a blockade is needed.. I know this is like "but it's built to last" so it shouldn't need changing.. but between Birmingham and London I think it's fair to expect at least the odd road needs to be widened or new road built which has to span HS2..

As there are absolutely no alternative routes and junctions (bar the depot at Calvert) as a design choice, and because the capacity will be already taken on the classic lines..

What happens? You have a bus replacement all the way from Birmingham to London?

Same as happens now with other main lines, people have to go via other routes (and they try to restrict blockades to Christmas/Easter where possible). At least with HS2 there will be a direct replacement

 

[philosopher]

Same as happens now with other main lines, people have to go via other routes (and they try to restrict blockades to Christmas/Easter where possible). At least with HS2 there will be a direct replacement

Closures of HS2 for engineering work I would have thought would be far less than other lines, at least for the few 20 or so years as it would be a new line so would not require lengthy closures for infrastructure renewals. Any maintenance work should hopefully be able to done overnight.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Indeed, however (like for the testing of the actual trains at the higher speeds) this is something which could be added back in at a later date if it was justified.

As such, it's a sensible cut to make as it's not one which bakes in additional costs or future limits.

The changing of the contract for the rolling stock when there's the mechanism to use the 390 replacement to fix the issue with the 200m trains is an example where that will bake in extra costs for no benefit. Especially when the reduced journey times means you can fit more trains in the operation hours of the railway.

In that the first train leaving Manchester at the same time arrives to London 30 minutes sooner and with the last train arriving to Manchester at the same time as it currently does meansthat it's leaving London 30 minutes later than currently gives you 60 minutes of extra train services whilst still giving track maintenance access of broadly the same time. That allows up to 3 extra services a day, so likely 2 to ensure that track access for maintenance time is maintained, which means in the short term there's still some small increases in capacity in the morning peak and evening (post commuting) period, two times when passenger numbers are high.

Ok so if the first train leaves London for Manchester at 06:00 and the last leaves London at 22:40 and the capacity is 600 per train like the class 800 9 car services then the total capacity in both directions is 61200 seats a day or 22,276,800 seats a year.

The current passenger demand is 3.56 million trips between London and Manchester. So there will be ample capacity.

Now sure there are some trips beyond Manchester Piccadilly to London (To give a couple of examples with relatively high ridership Bolton-London is 35k, Manchester-Brighton is 18k) , but I’m not sure there are any particularly obvious destinations and there are decent numbers of trips to Stockport (630k), Wilmslow (240k) and Crewe (810k) where the HS2 services may stop. But that’s it.

Do not forget the British classic rail network is very fast compared to other countries and our total long distance ridership is about the same as the French depending on what exactly you count - so the ridership growth may well be small.

 

[The Ham]

Closures of HS2 for engineering work I would have thought would be far less than other lines, at least for the few 20 or so years as it would be a new line so would not require lengthy closures for infrastructure renewals. Any maintenance work should hopefully be able to done overnight.

Also, if you need to take the WCML between London and Manchester (when Phase 1 is all that's built) it'll only be 30 minutes slower than using HS2, so whist not great you could close HS2 early to give you a bit more time for maintenence without it being a significant issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2026 ==

Ok so if the first train leaves London for Manchester at 06:00 and the last leaves London at 22:40 and the capacity is 600 per train like the class 800 9 car services then the total capacity in both directions is 61200 seats a day or 22,276,800 seats a year.

The current passenger demand is 3.56 million trips between London and Manchester. So there will be ample capacity.

Now sure there are some trips beyond Manchester Piccadilly to London (To give a couple of examples with relatively high ridership Bolton-London is 35k, Manchester-Brighton is 18k) , but I’m not sure there are any particularly obvious destinations and there are decent numbers of trips to Stockport (630k), Wilmslow (240k) and Crewe (810k) where the HS2 services may stop. But that’s it.

Do not forget the British classic rail network is very fast compared to other countries and our total long distance ridership is about the same as the French depending on what exactly you count - so the ridership growth may well be small.

I've looked at the numbers in a bit more detail elsewhere:

Having looked at the numbers, the actual real world case necessarily as bad as it could be.

The core of the issue isn't just about the number of seats per train, but about how faster journey times can unlock additional capacity during critical peak periods.

To illustrate this, let's look at a recent example of morning services from Manchester to London:
Current Services (a recent week day Schedule):

05:54 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
06:02 - 9 coaches (489 seats)
06:14 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
06:23 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
06:29 - 11 coaches (607 seats) - Arrives 08:40
06:54 - 11 coaches (607 seats) - Arrives 09:15
07:00 - 11 coaches (607 seats) - Arrives 09:02
07:14 - 9 coaches (519 seats) - Arrives 09:31

Total Capacity:

Before 09:05: 3,624 seats
Before 09:35: 4,820 seats

Now, let's factor in the benefit of HS2's faster journey times. Assuming a 30-minute reduction in travel time on a post-Phase 1 timetable, the arrival times for these services would shift significantly. For instance, the 07:14 service would arrive at 09:01 instead of 09:31, and the 07:34 service would arrive at 09:16.

This shift means more services fall within the morning peak arrival windows. Using the same 09:05 and 09:35 cut-off points with 200m stock (504 seats per train), the capacity picture remains robust:

Capacity before 09:05: 4,032 seats (+11% increase)
Capacity before 09:35: 5,040 seats (+4.5% increase)

It's also worth noting that pre-2022, the 11-coach trains had 589 seats. The recent upgrade to 607 seats already represents a 3% capacity uplift on those services.

While individual services may still be busy, the data shows that the faster journey times provided by HS2 compensate for the shorter train length during the most critical morning peak hours, still providing a net gain over the current baseline.

This analysis demonstrates that the current 200m train specification is more than adequate for the immediate future. Rather than reopening contracts and risking delays, our focus should be on successfully delivering HS2. The capacity will support initial growth, and if demand continues to rise as projected, it will make a compelling case for the subsequent phases of the project, which will bring their own significant capacity increases.

I've looked at Friday evenings, as I believe this could also be a rather busy period.

For Friday 10th April there were the following services between 17:00 and 19:00:

17:13 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
17:33 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
17:53 - 9 coaches (489 seats)
18:13 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
18:33 - 9 coaches (489 seats)
18:53 - 11 coaches (607 seats)

That's a total of 3,406 whilst the new HS2 trains would have a capacity of 3,024 seats and so there's would be a reduction of 11.2% which isn't ideal, but it's noticeably less than the per train capacity of up to 17.0% as not all services are 11 coach units.

Whist after 19:00 through to the end of service there were these services:

19:13 - 9 coaches (489 seats)
19:33 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
19:53 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
20:13 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
20:33 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
20:53 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
21:39 - 11 coaches (607 seats)
22:03 - 11 coaches (607 seats)

That's a total of 4,738 whist by adding one extra service at the end at 22:33 which would arrive into Manchester at the same time as the current 22:03 the total seats post HS2 would be 4,536 and so a 4.3% capacity reduction. Again not ideal but not as significant as the per train capacity indicates.

Although, pre Covid there was a later service which if reinstated (or the running of 4 services between 20:53 and 22:13 rather than the current 3 in this 80 minute period) that would result in there being a small increase to 5,040 (+6.4%) after 19:00.

How've when comparing the whole evening period this is a quite small reduction (-1%) as the current number of seats is 8,144 whilst after HS2 this would be 8,064 seats.

Although, if the 20 minute frequency was continued to the end of services from 20:53 and the pre Covid service was reinstated (8,568 seats) then this would mean over the whole Friday evening there was a 5.6% capacity uplift.

Obviously, such a situation isn't ideal, however if there's a need for extra capacity beyond this, then clearly HS2 into Manchester should be back in the table and is probably justified.

Note that the first train of the day would still arrive into London at the same time, it's just the later trains which currently fall outside of the end of the morning peak currently would be the ones which are arriving sooner, as such they increase the capacity in the morning peak rather than after it or by extending the early morning arrival times.

 

[Shrop]

Just catching up with posts on this thread, and noticing several comments about acceleration. In this context I offer two observations.
One - when travelling on buses, it never ceases to amaze me how many passengers simply don't expect it to actually move. Most (not all, but most) drivers take care to wait for passengers to be seated, or to have something to hold on to while standing, before they drive off, and they also try to do so without jerky acceleration.
However, some passengers still appear shocked when the bus actually moves off, as though the driver has deliberately tried to injure them, however gently they actually accelerate. London Underground etc is similar - but to a great extent it's the jerky movements that are often the problem, not the actual acceleration. The main problem is the lack of education of the passengers - which could be improved with better publicity.
Ponit two - here's why I say this, and why I would defend good acceleration. I travelled the Shanghai Maglev in 2005, and it did 19 miles from standing to standing, in 7m22s, reaching 267mph (430kph) along the way.
When telling people about this back home in the UK, almost without exception they expect that passengers must have been strapped in, aircraft style, to cope with the acceleration and braking.
But they weren't, in fact many passengers were standing unsupported throughout the journey, because it was done smoothly. The only jerk here was the deliberate one when reaching 430kph, as the acceleration cuts off in order to show the immense power of the train. At this point standing passengers staggered slightly yet the speed remained constant for a minute or so - what actually happens is that they have compensated for the acceleration for around 3 minutes, and when the speed suddenly becomes constant, they need to compensate for the lack of acceleration!
Nothing dangerous, just awe-inspiring, but it all shows that acceleration is not the problem, only the jerkiness, which didn't happen on Maglev.
So based on first hand experience, I'd certainly advocate that reaching around 200mph in 2 minutes or thereabouts is NOT a problem, so long as it's done smoothly.

 

[Krokodil]

So based on first hand experience, I'd certainly advocate that reaching around 200mph in 2 minutes or thereabouts is NOT a problem, so long as it's done smoothly.

Maybe, but that doesn't add up to an argument to have the "high speed metro" that some on here were advocating for, stopping at every other gatepost.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Just catching up with posts on this thread, and noticing several comments about acceleration. In this context I offer two observations.
One - when travelling on buses, it never ceases to amaze me how many passengers simply don't expect it to actually move. Most (not all, but most) drivers take care to wait for passengers to be seated, or to have something to hold on to while standing, before they drive off, and they also try to do so without jerky acceleration.
However, some passengers still appear shocked when the bus actually moves off, as though the driver has deliberately tried to injure them, however gently they actually accelerate. London Underground etc is similar - but to a great extent it's the jerky movements that are often the problem, not the actual acceleration. The main problem is the lack of education of the passengers - which could be improved with better publicity.
Ponit two - here's why I say this, and why I would defend good acceleration. I travelled the Shanghai Maglev in 2005, and it did 19 miles from standing to standing, in 7m22s, reaching 267mph (430kph) along the way.
When telling people about this back home in the UK, almost without exception they expect that passengers must have been strapped in, aircraft style, to cope with the acceleration and braking.
But they weren't, in fact many passengers were standing unsupported throughout the journey, because it was done smoothly. The only jerk here was the deliberate one when reaching 430kph, as the acceleration cuts off in order to show the immense power of the train. At this point standing passengers staggered slightly yet the speed remained constant for a minute or so - what actually happens is that they have compensated for the acceleration for around 3 minutes, and when the speed suddenly becomes constant, they need to compensate for the lack of acceleration!
Nothing dangerous, just awe-inspiring, but it all shows that acceleration is not the problem, only the jerkiness, which didn't happen on Maglev.
So based on first hand experience, I'd certainly advocate that reaching around 200mph in 2 minutes or thereabouts is NOT a problem, so long as it's done smoothly.

I agree a smooth build up of acceleration and deceleration should allow people to adapt they posture if standing or even walking.

I dearly hope we do not have the sudden acceleration as experienced on electric buses. For those there are two factors :-
1) The lack of a clue ( engine note change or vibration as the vehicle is put in gear),
2) The aggressiveness of the acceleration.
Obviously when braking any bus can potentially fool passengers but there is a difference as most people are holding on because the bus is already moving. It is unlikely a bus will move off again before someone has finished getting to the exit the bus but it does happen.

For rail I assume (hope) the rates of acceleration and deceleration will never match those of an electric bus because the rail/wheel interface cannot provide enough grip for that. I at least mean the "jerk". So perhaps not the same issue.

For rail it is the wobbling from side to side we need to mitigate. Gets challenging on tired old Victorian trackbeds at sub 90mph. Fingers crossed for slab track on HS2.

 

[Shrop]

Maybe, but that doesn't add up to an argument to have the "high speed metro" that some on here were advocating for, stopping at every other gatepost.

Agreed, a lot of people on this forum seem to want all trains to stop many times.
They miss the point in several ways, passengers often like a calmer journey without the disruption of people moving around every few minutes, squabbling over seats when the allocation system has failed yet again, constant announcements etc etc.
It's better for many people to get where they want to go with the minimum of fuss, if only the "stop as often as possible" advocates would understand this.

 

[JonathanH]

Agreed, a lot of people on this forum seem to want all trains to stop many times.

I suspect they want both stoppers abd fast services to co-exist and don't like the compromises that exist in their place.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I suspect they want both stoppers abd fast services to co-exist and don't like the compromises that exist in their place.

The Tokaido Shinkansen has stopping services and express services and there is some compromise but not much.

Also if you are running let’s say 15 trains an hour and you have 3 stops you can have 3 trains in a row calling at them and two following trains with pathing allowance but not calling, and so on then that costs you one, maybe 1.5 slots at most to swap from the closest stop to the start to the furthest away.

 

[Krokodil]

The Tokaido Shinkansen has stopping services and express services and there is some compromise but not much.

Also if you are running let’s say 15 trains an hour and you have 3 stops you can have 3 trains in a row calling at them and two following trains with pathing allowance but not calling, and so on then that costs you one, maybe 1.5 slots at most to swap from the closest stop to the start to the furthest away.

Or you could just have all trains running fast from OOC to (at least) Birmingham Interchange and the people of Milton Keynes and Luton can continue using conventional services.

Most of them are only going to London anyway.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Or you could just have all trains running fast from OOC to (at least) Birmingham Interchange and the people of Milton Keynes and Luton can continue using conventional services.

Except the line doesn’t go anywhere near Milton Keynes and Luton.

Most of them are only going to London anyway.

40% of Luton trips are to London and 60% of Milton Keynes ones are.

It’s hardly overwhelming and the non London ones are cheaper to provide.

A station north of Aylesbury would be unfavourable for most people in its catchment to use to get to London so it’s usage would probably be more away from London if anything.

 

[JamesT]

Except the line doesn’t go anywhere near Milton Keynes and Luton.

Why is that a problem when the whole point is to put all the services that bypass these places on such a line?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Why is that a problem when the whole point is to put all the services that bypass these places on such a line?

Because the people who have to suffer the construction don’t get the benefits.

EDIT: It isn’t the only cost driver as the gold plating for speed definitely doesn’t help but it is a cost driver.

 

[JamesT]

Because the people who have to suffer the construction don’t get the benefits.

Getting more frequent services because your local line isn't full of trains whipping past isn't a benefit?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Getting more frequent services because your local line isn't full of trains whipping past isn't a benefit?

These benefits don’t exist south of Birmingham because the people affected by the construction don’t live on the west coast or midland mainlines.

And on the chiltern mainline, where only a few of those affected live, only 3% of customers are travelling from the Birmingham area to London so again the benefits are small.