Restarting HS2a

[Shrop]

MML can eventually take Leeds trains if upgraded between Sheff and Leeds, keeping them off the ECML, although I doubt they will. The east of the country has two lines - divide and rule. The NW is to get two, WCML and HS2 lines. Capacity will not an issue.

This is almost funny. MML has major population centres at Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield every single one of which is bigger than anywhere on ECML between London and Leeds. And bigger than anywhere on WCML too (after all, Birmingham isn't on WCML). But every excuse under the sun has been and still is made to not have HS2 serving these major population centres. A joined up transport system for the UK would have recognised that using HS2 to relieve the M1 was probably a better objective than using it to serve Heathrow, but hey ho.

It's interesting reading these discussions, but there always seems to be a lack of joined up thinking for the country as a whole. I look forward to any contrary comments!

 

[Krokodil]

otherwise the comparison is going to be via Crewe. Which I think probably loses you a few minutes at least?

So a 35 minute saving or so.

The other benefit from avoiding Crewe using the Golbourne link (other than savings in advertised journey times) is that you avoid the congestion around the station and free up capacity through Winsford/Weaver/Warrington/Winwick.

 

[Noddy]

As an aside, transport planners have seemingly never much cared about the links between Newcastle and Edinburgh. This can be seen in the contrast between the "west coast" road route where the M6/M74/A74M provide a continuous motorway connection right up to Glasgow, whereas on the other side the motorway runs out after Newcastle, with much of the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh slow single carriageway.

Because Newcastle-Edinburgh is a relatively small market. Edinburgh is west of Carlisle, and the virtually the entire central belt population (and industry) is west of Edinburgh so it’s sensible that they focussed on a single direct route to the south rather than a circuitous route via the east coast.

 

[Shrop]

Greengauge wrote:
Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle-London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2.

The east coast cities have shorter routes to London. Leeds is only 169 miles from London. All is needed is make the MML and ECML all 140mph.
The fastest train record for a journey between London and Edinburgh was in the ECML 35 years ago - 3 hours and 29 minutes. This record was established on 26 September 1991 by an InterCity 225 (Class 91). The average speed was approximately ~95.02 mph. Upgraded to 140mph. that speed will be comprehensively beaten.

New expensive track is not needed.

These discussions about fast times are also funny. Later this week I'll be enjoying a run from Paris to Strasbourg, which once again brings home just how far behind other countries we are with rail development in the UK. This journey is FURTHER than London to Newcastle, but the journey time is 1h46m, ie more than an hour quicker for this longer journey.

Okay, relieving capacity on WCML was the main reason given for developing the present half baked HS2 route, but there are benefits to be had for faster journeys too, such as providing strong incentives to be less dependent on roads and air travel.

I maintain that we have a lot to learn from rail developments abroad, if only we weren't so wrapped up in our own excuses for failure.

 

[Noddy]

This is almost funny. MML has major population centres at Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield every single one of which is bigger than anywhere on ECML between London and Leeds. And bigger than anywhere on WCML too (after all, Birmingham isn't on WCML). But every excuse under the sun has been and still is made to not have HS2 serving these major population centres. A joined up transport system for the UK would have recognised that using HS2 to relieve the M1 was probably a better objective than using it to serve Heathrow, but hey ho

These discussions about fast times are also funny. Later this week I'll be enjoying a run from Paris to Strasbourg, which once again brings home just how far behind other countries we are with rail development in the UK. This journey is FURTHER than London to Newcastle, but the journey time is 1h46m, ie more than an hour quicker for this longer journey.

Okay, relieving capacity on WCML was the main reason given for developing the present half baked HS2 route, but there are benefits to be had for faster journeys too, such as providing strong incentives to be less dependent on roads and air travel.

I maintain that we have a lot to learn from rail developments abroad, if only we weren't so wrapped up in our own excuses for failure.

It wouldn’t be a very high speed railway if it stopped at Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds. How many stations will your Paris-Strasbourg train stop at for example?

 

[Shrop]

It wouldn’t be a very high speed railway if it stopped at Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds. How many stations will your Paris-Strasbourg train stop at for example?

You're epitomising the UK problem of negative thinking, ie finding reasons not to do things. You might be surprised to know that a new railway would be capable of fast end to end journeys AND serving a few intermediate stations aswell!

 

[AlexSJW]

That does absolutely nothing about capacity.

There is no capacity that network cannot absorb.

This is almost funny. MML has major population centres at Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield every single one of which is bigger than anywhere on ECML between London and Leeds. And bigger than anywhere on WCML too (after all, Birmingham isn't on WCML). But every excuse under the sun has been and still is made to not have HS2 serving these major population centres. A joined up transport system for the UK would have recognised that using HS2 to relieve the M1 was probably a better objective than using it to serve Heathrow, but hey ho.

It's interesting reading these discussions, but there always seems to be a lack of joined up thinking for the country as a whole. I look forward to any contrary comments!

MML can serve, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheff. Leeds is hopeful.

 

[Noddy]

You're epitomising the UK problem of negative thinking, ie finding reasons not to do things. You might be surprised to know that a new railway would be capable of fast end to end journeys AND serving a few intermediate stations aswell!

So none then! Each intermediate stop adds at least 5 minute so your London (Paris) to Newcastle (Strasbourg) journey takes an extra 25 minutes because you’ve added in a load of extra stops and doesn’t give you anywhere near the same journey time benefit as your French equivalent!

 

[MatthewHutton]

So a 35 minute saving or so

The current London-Edinburgh time is 4h08. The time with the Golbourne Link is 3h40 - or a time saving of 28 minutes.

With HS2 phase 2a alone it is at best 3h50 - and that assumes there is no slimming down of the proposal.

If we assume a 10-15 minute speed up from the 140mph running you’d be looking at 3h53-3h58 via the east coast mainline. It’s a wash.

Because Newcastle-Edinburgh is a relatively small market

Newcastle-London (1.6m) and Newcastle-Edinburgh (950k) are both bigger than Glasgow-London (750k) though.

So none then! Each intermediate stop adds at least 5

Typical intercity trains have a 2 minute dwell. The class 800s have a 2 minute acceleration/deceleration penalty beyond that at e.g Didcot parkway giving a total penalty of 4 minutes.

The Shinkansen I believe has a minimum penalty of 4.5 minutes from 300km/h - but they also have shorter dwells.

Obviously at higher speeds the penalty is larger and at lower speeds smaller.

Of course also the intermediate stops are how other countries have got their projects over the line. Is Stoke Parkway - but with a quid pro quo that phase 2a actually happens not a worthwhile exchange?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

This is almost funny. MML has major population centres at Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield every single one of which is bigger than anywhere on ECML between London and Leeds.

I do think the absolute cheapest option for HS2 east which would serve Derby, Chesterfiled and Sheffield on the mainline would be a good option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

It wouldn’t be a very high speed railway if it stopped at Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds. How many stations will your Paris-Strasbourg train stop at for example?

Both is very much an option, the TGV does that a lot.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

How does Glasgow benefit from the ECML option?

London-Birmingham Interchange-Preston-Glasgow hourly or two hourly is still significantly faster than the status quo for Glasgow. And you could start doing that with just HS2 phase 1.

 

[Shrop]

So none then! Each intermediate stop adds at least 5 minute so your London (Paris) to Newcastle (Strasbourg) journey takes an extra 25 minutes because you’ve added in a load of extra stops and doesn’t give you anywhere near the same journey time benefit as your French equivalent!

A couple of points about this. Firstly, I admit to an error in my earlier comment, I meant to say "almost" an hour quicker, not "more than", but I won't edit it as I'm happy to admit to the error. But ... the French trains are still a HUGE amount quicker than the UK trains.

Secondly, it's a regular practice throughout the UK rail network to stop trains frequently, for the very reason that the acceleration is so good that stops don't cost much. I don't agree with this practice, for example I think it was useful having London-Glasgow trains that only stopped at Preston and Carlisle, instead of today when all trains stop additionally at Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster. I also think it was useful having non-stop trains running from London to South Wales, instead of stopping almost all trains at least three more times along the way. And then there's our XC trains which simply don't provide a prestige end to end service because they stop so often.

Finally (for now), I don't get your analogy about adding 25 minutes to the London-Newcastle journey time, they ARE comparable because today's fastest trains stop only once, not 5 times

 

[HSTEd]

So none then! Each intermediate stop adds at least 5 minute so your London (Paris) to Newcastle (Strasbourg) journey takes an extra 25 minutes because you’ve added in a load of extra stops and doesn’t give you anywhere near the same journey time benefit as your French equivalent!

The problem is that the French equivalent burns all its political capital on the first hundred miles or so, as HS2 did, and never reaches Newcastle.

To meet the stated requirement to "boost capacity", you only have to be competitive with the existing route - so that noone complains when there trains are rerouted over it.

You can fit in a lot of stops between Handsacre and say York (which would be the limiting station between Handsacre and Newcastle) before you end up slower than the ECML, and you will still crush the classic railway for basically every journey combination apart from London-York, which will be a wash.

EDIT:
As an example, it is 38 minutes from London to Birmingham international.

A routing from Birmingham International via the Handsacre route, then going Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Leeds, York is ~215km. Assuming all stops, 320kph plus ~3 minutes plus six minutes for each pre-York stop, that's ~111 minutes. 1hr51, which is within a handful of minutes of the fastest London-York trains (1hr46) and faster than many others (~2hr00).

You still relieve the southern ECML.

In summary, if intermediate stations ease the primarily political challenge of getting the route further north, then do it.

 

[AlexSJW]

The legal powers to build the section under the Phase 2a Act are scheduled to expire today 11 Feb. If not extended at the last minute, delivering any future rail link on any section of this alignment would become significantly more complex.

The Act gave HS2 Ltd, and the Secretary of State, powers to compulsorily acquire land and proceed with construction for Phase 2a between Fradley and Crewe. If not extended, there will be a loss of compulsory purchase powers. The government can no longer legally force landowners to sell land for Phase 2a works under the existing Act. That means no further land acquisition for the route can take place unless new legislation is passed. Land already acquired may be sold off. Reports suggest that, once the powers lapse, land already bought by HS2 Ltd is likely to be sold off back into private ownership.

Safeguarding has already been lifted in many areas, separately from the expiry of powers. The government removed planning safeguarding for much of the Phase 2a route earlier, meaning local authorities no longer have to consult HS2 on planning applications and the land is more open to other development.

 

[Noddy]

Newcastle-London (1.6m) and Newcastle-Edinburgh (950k) are both bigger than Glasgow-London (750k) though.

London-Newcastle is completely irrelevant when this comment is explicitly in reference to upgrading the A1 between Edinburgh-Newcastle.

The problem is that the French equivalent burns all its political capital on the first hundred miles or so, as HS2 did, and never reaches Newcastle.

To meet the stated requirement to "boost capacity", you only have to be competitive with the existing route - so that noone complains when there trains are rerouted over it.

You can fit in a lot of stops between Handsacre and say York (which would be the limiting station between Handsacre and Newcastle) before you end up slower than the ECML, and you will still crush the classic railway for basically every journey combination apart from London-York, which will be a wash.
EDIT:
As an example, it is 38 minutes from London to Birmingham international.

A routing from Birmingham International via the Handsacre route, then going Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Leeds, York is ~215km. Assuming all stops, 320kph plus ~3 minutes plus six minutes for each pre-York stop, that's ~111 minutes. 1hr51, which is within a handful of minutes of the fastest London-York trains (1hr46) and faster than many others (~2hr00).

As above, please read what the comment was in reference to.

In terms of burning political capital that is clearly an issue I agree but IMO it was lost when folk let the narrative become dominated about HS2 being an entirely London-Birmingham project. I doubt the French allowed the narrative around the phased build of LGV Est to become dominated by ‘why are we spending billions to build a railway to Baudrecourt (population 173)’. More recently and even worse we’ve let the narrative become Old Oak Common-Aston. That then allows crazy commentators to come along and make absurd statements that it will cost £1 billion per mile, which folk just lap up.

High Speed rail can’t do everything everywhere all at once. If you are going to stop everywhere that is an valid option to create kind of Kodama style operation but a) don’t expect it to be cheaper to build (as some have claimed here) b) don’t expect significantly quicker journey times on your core markets (which you point out in your edit and would be even worse if it did Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds as was suggested by the OP) which leads onto c) don’t expect it to generate the kinds of modal shifts on core markets seen in the likes of France and Japan.

 

[Krokodil]

There is no capacity that network cannot absorb.

You surely don't believe that nonsense? When LNER is hiking prices to keep a lid on demand.

The current London-Edinburgh time is 4h08. The time with the Golbourne Link is 3h40 - or a time saving of 28 minutes.

I should have clarified that it was a 35 minute saving compared with going via Carlisle today.

 

[MatthewHutton]

don’t expect it to be cheaper to build

It would be cheaper to build with more stops as you wouldn’t have to do all of the mitigations.

And the stops themselves shouldn’t be expensive at all. Whatever a siding costs plus £10m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

When LNER is hiking prices to keep a lid on demand.

Where’s the evidence of this?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Where’s the evidence of this?

See below thread, LNER remove the good value flexible fares so they can push advanced fares higher:

Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

Mod note: split from existing thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lner-to-pilot-removal-of-off-peak-tickets.261183/ Expansion of 70-min Flex for journeys made from 30-9-24...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[MatthewHutton]

See below thread, LNER remove the good value flexible fares so they can push advanced fares higher:

Expansion of LNER 70-min flex trial area ("Simpler Fares")

Mod note: split from existing thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lner-to-pilot-removal-of-off-peak-tickets.261183/ Expansion of 70-min Flex for journeys made from 30-9-24...

www.railforums.co.uk

Ok fair, but a west coast mainline semi-fast HS2 service that called at the intermediate stops before getting to Edinburgh in even 4h15 or something would still add value there. Even if the fastest east coast services took 3h50.

 

[Noddy]

It would be cheaper to build with more stops as you wouldn’t have to do all of the mitigations.

And the stops themselves shouldn’t be expensive at all.

The stations are the most expensive elements. Especially if they are in the centre of towns or cities.

You have to purchase large tracts of higher value urban land on which to build your station, then demolish everything, reroute public highways and countless miles of urban services (which are typically poorly or unmapped), and sort out drainage to modern standards. Both Euston and Curzon Street had vast amounts of money spent just to undertake the archaeological excavations. And that’s just for starters before you even build anything.

What mitigations do you think can be skipped by building extra stations?

 

[MatthewHutton]

The stations are the most expensive elements. Especially if they are in the centre of towns or cities

Either you use existing stations in the centre of cities like the TGV or you build parkway stations on the outskirts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

What mitigations do you think can be skipped by building extra stations?

You can have smaller tunnels, you get less planning issues in general with the local authorities etc.

I mean that is definitely part of why HS2 is the most expensive such project in the world.

 

[Noddy]

Either you use existing stations in the centre of cities like the TGV or you build parkway stations on the outskirts.

Using the existing stations does not free up capacity on the existing lines. In fact it makes the whole system worse as delays on the classic lines impact the High Speed line and vice versa. There is a reason the Shinkansen is so reliable. It’s segregated.

Building parkway stations was what was proposed. Birmingham Interchange is just that. However, the Toton and Sheffield/Rotherham parkways were both unpopular and both were used as an argument against building HS2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 minutes ago ==

You can have smaller tunnels, you get less planning issues in general with the local authorities etc.

I mean that is definitely part of why HS2 is the most expensive such project in the world.

How does building extra stations result in smaller tunnels?

 

[Trainbike46]

As much as I think something to serve Leeds, Sheffield, and Nottingham/Derby should be built, it's kind of off-topic here?

On the topic of phase 2A, it should be built, and options to build beyond there should be considered.

I think a through station in Manchester, built so that trains can do things like London/Birmingham - Manchester - Edinburgh/Glasgow/Leeds would be a good idea if such a through station and the lines that would be necessary beyond it can be designed sensibly.

That way, it is possible to combine services, so that the frequencies can be higher.

 

[MatthewHutton]

How does building extra stations result in smaller tunnels?

Because you annoy the locals less.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

That way, it is possible to combine services, so that the frequencies can be higher.

The challenge with via X services is that they are wildly slower than the direct bypassing lines. E.g London to Crewe via Birmingham is an hour longer than via the Trent valley lines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

Using the existing stations does not free up capacity on the existing lines

It does. Because there’s plenty of times you can’t run classic services because of a stopping train shadowing the track.

That said I don’t think in general running to existing central stations has been considered - and most suggestions have been for online parkway stations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

However, the Toton and Sheffield/Rotherham parkways were both unpopular and both were used as an argument against building HS2.

Probably because Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield are big enough to deserve city centre service - I guess maybe then for those there is potentially a cost issue if there isn’t capacity in the city centre. I am not sure.

My suspicion is that Derby and Nottingham could be served in the gaps caused by thameslink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

There is a reason the Shinkansen is so reliable. It’s segregated

The TGV is also reliable (albeit less than the Shinkansen) and isn’t segregated.

 

[Noddy]

Because you annoy the locals less.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

Which locals do you annoy less? You can build a station in one place (costing huge amounts of extra money) but that isn’t going to appease the locals further down the line any more. It will just mean thy are more angry and opposed because they didn’t also get a station. So do you build them one too? The whole thing then becomes a slippery slope to becoming unbelievably more expensive. And it’s still no guarantee you wouldn’t need to build tunnels. The tunnels in the Chilterns are to do with it being in an AONB. They would need to be built regardless.

It does. Because there’s plenty of times you can’t run classic services because of a stopping train shadowing the track.

That said I don’t think in general running to existing central stations has been considered - and most suggestions have been for online parkway stations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

It doesn’t. Th main constraints on the network are typically junction and stations related and as soon as you start directly interacting with these you run into problems.

Probably because Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield are big enough to deserve city centre service - I guess maybe then for those there is potentially a cost issue if there isn’t capacity in the city centre. I am not sure.

You either serve these cities directly but spend vast amounts of money building city centre stations in these historic cities, which ends up taking a slower circuitous route (look at a map of where Derby and Nottingham are) or you by pass them with a cheaper straighter fast line. It’s a clear choice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

The TGV is also reliable (albeit less than the Shinkansen) and isn’t segregated

Most of the TGV network is segregated. ‘Most’ is why it isn’t as reliable as in Japan.

 

[3RDGEN]

Cleared for 140mph if they could reach that. More bottlenecks than now were in situe then. If the train could do 140mph for all the ECML and 160mph on some long sections it will clearly exceed an average of 95.02 mph handsomely.

So as I said serious engineering required, serious money and serious disruption to the route for years so it's pie in the sky dreamland. ECML needs capacity improvements not dreamland higher speeds.

 

[Nottingham59]

The challenge with via X services is that they are wildly slower than the direct bypassing lines. E.g London to Crewe via Birmingham is an hour longer than via the Trent valley lines.

Though routing London-Glasgow via Birmingham is an advantage for Avanti as it allows them to segment that market.

They can fill those trains with price-sensitive customers on advance tickets, and release seats on the faster direct services for higher-paying business customers. They get much higher loadings on their Birmingham-Glasgow trains than they would do if they were not through trains to London.

There will be similar opportunity for HS2 Ltd to run some through trains to Manchester via Curzon St, with a time penalty of 20-30 minutes compared to the direct services.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Which locals do you annoy less? You can build a station in one place (costing huge amounts of extra money) but that isn’t going to appease the locals further down the line any more. It will just mean thy are more angry and opposed because they didn’t also get a station. So do you build them one too? The whole thing then becomes a slippery slope to becoming unbelievably more expensive.

Come on man. A basic rural station with lifts and passing tracks or PEDs isn’t going to cost “huge amounts of money”. It doesn’t anywhere else.

And if you do one at Stoke and then have to do one in Buckinghamshire and one in Warwickshire the sky truly isn’t going to fall.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

You either serve these cities directly but spend vast amounts of money building city centre stations in these historic cities,

Why can’t you fit the HS2 services in the gaps between existing trains? Are there really 10 trains an hour per platform to those places?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

The tunnels in the Chilterns are to do with it being in an AONB. They would need to be built regardless.

The people of the Chilterns would be much more relaxed about HS2 if they got to use it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

It doesn’t. Th main constraints on the network are typically junction and stations related and as soon as you start directly interacting with these you run into problems.

This is true to a point. But a service that only calls at one stop and goes back out onto the fast line with a grade separated junction isn’t going to disrupt other trains. There are lots of these in France.

 

[IRF]

The legal powers to build the section under the Phase 2a Act are scheduled to expire today 11 Feb. If not extended at the last minute, delivering any future rail link on any section of this alignment would become significantly more complex.

The Act gave HS2 Ltd, and the Secretary of State, powers to compulsorily acquire land and proceed with construction for Phase 2a between Fradley and Crewe. If not extended, there will be a loss of compulsory purchase powers. The government can no longer legally force landowners to sell land for Phase 2a works under the existing Act. That means no further land acquisition for the route can take place unless new legislation is passed. Land already acquired may be sold off. Reports suggest that, once the powers lapse, land already bought by HS2 Ltd is likely to be sold off back into private ownership.

Safeguarding has already been lifted in many areas, separately from the expiry of powers. The government removed planning safeguarding for much of the Phase 2a route earlier, meaning local authorities no longer have to consult HS2 on planning applications and the land is more open to other development.

The government announced last month that they wouldn't sell off land already procured along the Phase 2A route. They just haven't extended the powers to acquire the rest of the land needed.

 

[Noddy]

Come on man. A basic rural station with lifts and passing tracks or PEDs isn’t going to cost “huge amounts of money”. It doesn’t anywhere else.

And if you do one at Stoke and then have to do one in Buckinghamshire and one in Warwickshire the sky truly isn’t going to fall.

Thats three extra stops @ 5-6 minutes each. So you’ve slowed down services by 15-18minutes to potentially gain a few extra passengers. But this is at the expensive of loosing passengers in much larger markets further north because they’ll just stick to their cars or the plane to make their journey.

The people of the Chilterns would be much more relaxed about HS2 if they got to use it.

That doesn’t make the tunnels any cheaper.

This is true to a point. But a service that only calls at one stop and goes back out onto the fast line with a grade separated junction isn’t going to disrupt other trains. There are lots of these in France.

This doesn’t happen in many places in the core LGV network in France. The LGV Est to Strasbourg discussed earlier for example doesn’t call into Nancy (metropolitan population 500k) or Reims (metropolitan population 300k) because it simply doesn’t present the best value for money. It goes straight to Strasbourg (metropolitan population 860k).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why can’t you fit the HS2 services in the gaps between existing trains? Are there really 10 trains an hour per platform to those places?

You might be able to fit them into the gaps at one station, but you can't guarantee the timetable will match up so those same trains can also fit into the (different) gaps at the next station the trains leave the high speed lines to call at. If you want to do that, it forces the HS2 timetable to be interlinked with the timetables for existing slow trains that uses those stations, which puts new constraints on the timetables. That might or might not be enough to make it impossible to devise a good regular timetable, but it certainly will make HS2 highly vulnerable to importing any service disruption from other lines.

This is true to a point. But a service that only calls at one stop and goes back out onto the fast line with a grade separated junction isn’t going to disrupt other trains. There are lots of these in France.

Well it depends how intensively you want to use the fast line. If it adds - say - 4 minutes to journey times for a train to leave the fast line to call somewhere before rejoining the fast line, that means you can't schedule a fast train to set off from the terminus within 2-6 minutes after a slower train. That's not a problem if you only want to run a train every half hour, but it is a huge problem if you want to run trains every 5 minutes or less. The original plans for HS2 involved a train about every 3 minutes between London and Birmingham: That would've been next to impossible to schedule if some trains stopped in Buckinghamshire and others didn't.

 

[AlexSJW]

The government announced last month that they wouldn't sell off land already procured along the Phase 2A route. They just haven't extended the powers to acquire the rest of the land needed.

I always thought that was musing, not firm, because they were placating Burnham re: keeping him out of Westminster, so we give you this this Birmingham to Manchester railway,. A railway that will not be looked at until NPR is completed, and after HS2 is operational. So it will fizzle away.

So the important Fradley to Hixon section is OK to form a Stafford bypass and route into Manchester via Stoke. Hopefully very soon to come on line at the time time as HS2, or after Burnham is out of Manchester.

One aspect of getting to Manchester is reusing the Macclesfield to Marple line. The trackbed is still there. It bypasses Stockport. Also can be used for local traffic.