There's an easy way to free up capacity on the WCML. Stop running such an intensive service to Manchester and Birmingham. I've often been on trains where all the passengers could be accommodated in three coaches.
My various observations may be opinions but my opinions are based on fact.
"On time and within budget" is a remark that should be in the same area of fact as "the cheque is in the post".
GWR electrification - a shambles.
Eurostar. Still not carrying the projected numbers of passengers.
HS1 domestic. Only carries the numbers that it does because following it's introduction all of the fast Victoria/Charing Cross trains were withdrawn.
MML electrification. Abandoned.
ECML. Those pesky wires still keep on falling down.
Cross Pennines. Surely we can do better than that?
HS2 is not stealing any money, I never did imply that it was. However, if the money that has miraculously been made available was used for the present network............
If a railway is going to be built to relieve traffic south of Birmingham why not build a "conventional" low speed high speed line for 125 mph running. After all it's only about 100 miles to Birmingham from London and a new line would probably give a journey time of around 75-80 minutes. With conventional signalling it could be used by freight too.
There's several issues here.
1) Firstly just because you've seen trains which have capacity doens't mean that the railway doesn't need more capacity. I've seen GWR HSTs from Reading - Paddington with plenty of space, but wouldn't suggest turning down the frequencies.
2) Running trains to try and line up with passenger numbers at different times of day is not straightforward, especially on intercity routes. Indeed, running the trains at times to suit the railway is what killed a lot of demand during the rationalisation years. It is beneficial to have some spare capacity if it means the service is convenient, as perceived convenience is a major factor in getting people to choose the railway over other modes of transport.
3) People talking about "on time and on budget" are more likely to be proven right with new-build infrastructure. It's much easier to get infrastructure built if you're not having to run service trains on it in the mean time. A lot of the problems faced on the GWML project have been NR fumbling around in the dark and getting things done over short possessions. Had they been able to close the whole route until the work is done we perhaps wouldn't have seen the problems that we have (not that this would be acceptable for the passengers of course!)
4) HS1 was only built relatively recently compared with other mainlines. Why are you expecting it to be at capacity now? Railways are long-term infrastructure; if HS1 was already full to bursting already then something would be wrong.
5) Not that much money would be saved by making the railway 125mph, in terms of land formation. There would still have been the lengthy consultation process had the line been able to be diverted somewhat, as nobody wants infrastructure built near them (unless it raises their house price). There is also some benefit to reducing journey times, again to attract people to use the service.
6) The whole point of the new railway is to segregate traffic, as this is how the capacity gets increased. Mixing freight on an express railway defeats the whole point of doing this. The only possible reason I can see to put freight on HS2 would be to take advantage of the high loading gauge to have some form of
rolling highway, but even then you'd need high-speed freight trains to avoid capacity issues. Has anyone built 250mph freight trains?