My figures of 40 and 46 were purely “out of the air” - the relevant bit was the 6 minute difference between them.
If we are talking about Liverpool Street to Colchester non-stop then your 'out of the air' figures are very coincidental because 40 mins represents a good clear run, while 46 minutes is the current schedule. The relevant piece of information is
why such a disparity over such a short distance. IIRC the French allow 3.5 mins per 100km (62 miles) or 4 min per 100km depending on the type of service.
My French colleague regularly reports on the situation in France, and his experience suggests that services today are slower than the 1970's with shorter trains and lighter loads. But no more reliable. My understanding of the situation is that the slower schedules in France seem to induce a state of lethargy with drivers driving at slower than posted speed limits and a reluctance to use top speed to make up for delays. It also allows the infrastructure operators to delay maintenance on sections of track because they know the schedules can cope with it. Is that a way to run an efficient railway?
From my own experience of the GEML it is late running freight or infrastructure issues that seem to cause most delays plus the odd broken down unit. All this excess recovery time does not seem to improve recovery that much because any disruption usually causes absolute chaos to the timetable.
The freight issue is harder to deal with because most of it is diesel hauled at lowish average speeds that even a London to Colchester stopper can beat. And there are not enough freight loops long or fast enough to put a late running freight train in once it is late.
The current situation seems to lack any ambition with regard to improving journey times. It seems to be being played very very safely.
