We need High speed Rail, but Is HS2 really Needed?

[quantinghome]

1 regional city gets connected to 2 others. That's a really, really impressive development which will close the north-south gap overnight. Oh wait, it isn't and it won't

2 others? Presumably you're referring to Leeds and Manchester connecting to Birmingham, and ignoring Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Crewe and all cities further North which are planned to be connected. Also ignoring the intermediate connections that will be vastly improved (e.g. Leeds-Sheffield, Leeds-East Midlands).

If HS2 is so rubbish at connecting the midlands and the north, what's your alternative solution? (Bearing in mind of course that NPR is also planned to provide trans-pennine connections).

 

[B&I]

2 others? Presumably you're referring to Leeds and Manchester connecting to Birmingham, and ignoring Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Crewe and all cities further North which are planned to be connected. Also ignoring the intermediate connections that will be vastly improved (e.g. Leeds-Sheffield, Leeds-East Midlands).

If HS2 is so rubbish at connecting the midlands and the north, what's your alternative solution? (Bearing in mind of course that NPR is also planned to provide trans-pennine connections).

Which HS2 are we talking about ?

The one that gets no nearer to Liverpool than Crewe, and which will not play host to any Liverpool-Birmingham services ? They'll continue to be a glorified local atopper taking 1 hr 47 mins post-HS2.

The one which stops 8 miles west of Nottingham ?

The one which is not, so far as I'm aware, planning to provide any services from Sheffield to anywhere except London ?

The one which seems to think Crewe is one of the north's premier cities, mostly because it doesn't serve a decent proportion of the north's actual cities ?

By 'NPR', do you mean the theoretical railway for which there is no definitive plan, no enabling legislation, and no funding, and which HS2 Ltd seems determined fo strangle by refusing to nake passive provision for it (accoedig to some posters on the Manchester Skyscrapercity forum) ?

My alternative solution would be build a shorter bypass, by a less expensive route, for the slowest and most crowded part of the WCML (to somewhere south east of Brum to connect to the GWR line through Solihull, and the WCML continuing north), then spend the money saved on dragging the present links between our large cities out of the pony and cart age

 

[Altnabreac]

Here is a list of non London City pairs that will have faster services post HS2 Phase 2, using only places with official UK city status and only those services listed in the HS2 modelled Phase 2b business case:
Edinburgh - Birmingham
Glasgow - Birmingham
Carlisle - Birmingham
Lancaster - Birmingham
Preston - Birmingham
Newcastle - Birmingham
Durham - Birmingham
York - Birmingham
Leeds - Birmingham
Sheffield - Birmingham
Newcastle - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
Durham - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
York - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
Leeds - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
And Manchester - Birmingham which I forgot. Thanks Senex

I'm not including journeys from NE England to Derby being faster via East Midlands Interchange as they are possible without changing at the moment but I suspect they will also be quicker via HS2. This also excludes faster journeys from Birmingham to places like Darlington, Wigan, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie and Motherwell that don't have city status.

 

[quantinghome]

Which HS2 are we talking about ?

I see. Improvements HS2 provides only 'count' if they comprise city centre to city centre services using entirely new infrastructure for the whole journey and are currently included in the business case. I would suggest this is a somewhat artificial constraint which has little bearing on judging the merits of HS2.

My alternative solution would be build a shorter bypass, by a less expensive route, for the slowest and most crowded part of the WCML (to somewhere south east of Brum to connect to the GWR line through Solihull, and the WCML continuing north), then spend the money saved on dragging the present links between our large cities out of the pony and cart age

So what route are you going to use to serve (say) Birmingham to Leeds? How would it be materially different to that currently proposed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

My alternative solution would be build a shorter bypass, by a less expensive route, for the slowest and most crowded part of the WCML (to somewhere south east of Brum to connect to the GWR line through Solihull, and the WCML continuing north), then spend the money saved on dragging the present links between our large cities out of the pony and cart age

Where's the capacity on the GWML for an additional 9tph (minimum) of fast line services, please?

 

[Clip]

I see. Improvements HS2 provides only 'count' if they comprise city centre to city centre services using entirely new infrastructure for the whole journey and are currently included in the business case. I would suggest this is a somewhat artificial constraint which has little bearing on judging the merits of HS2.

If it doesnt include Liverpool in any plans for anything then B&I will argue vigorously about the injustice

 

[tbtc]

Where has this obsession with sending HS2 to "somewhere south of London - anywhere south of London - it doesn't really matter but we must be seen to do something different to the actual plans" come from?

The most expensive bit of the current HS2 (per mile) is the section from Old Oak Common into Euston. But what are the alternatives?

You can't terminate everything at OOC - that'd be ridiculous - it's one thing to have a "parkway" station at smaller places like Nottingham (or Meadowhall) but the idea of dumping eighteen 400m trains per hour worth of passengers onto the Elizabeth Line is pretty weak - as is the idea of spending tens of billions of pounds and getting no closer than suburban London. Either go into central London or forget about it. For a start, a suburban terminus won't tempt sufficient people off the existing WCML/MML/ECML services.

You want to run beyond London? Because Ashford requires 18x400m trains per hour, on top of its existing services? You'd free up a little space at Euston by not terminating trains there but you'd still need a lot of platforms, given that you'd have thirty six arrivals/departures per hour - and HS2 trains aren't going to unload as quickly as wide-doored routes like Thameslink.

It's "easy" to find the best/cheapest alignment into a city centre - but significantly harder when your plan is to build a through route - hence Leeds/ Manchester/ Birmingham being termini. You'd need to punch a route beyond Euston roughly in line with HS2 - since the trains won't be able to cope with curves as tight as metro-stock if you want them to run at high speeds - which becomes exponentially more complicated/ expensive. One thing to find a route from the M25 into central London but a lot lot harder to find one that continues in a straight line through the centre of the city and out the other side.

It's not just about running beyond Euston (to the Kentish countryside) in a straight horizontal line - you'd also have to squeeze in between all of the existing underground railways - plus rivers - at "high speed"?

Has anyone looked at Crossrail's recent problems and thought "digging a cross-city tunnel through London looks really easy"?

 

[Senex]

Here is a list of non London City pairs that will have faster services post HS2 Phase 2, using only places with official UK city status and only those services listed in the HS2 modelled Phase 2b business case:
Edinburgh - Birmingham
Glasgow - Birmingham
Carlisle - Birmingham
Lancaster - Birmingham
Preston - Birmingham
Newcastle - Birmingham
Durham - Birmingham
York - Birmingham
Leeds - Birmingham
Sheffield - Birmingham
Newcastle - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
Durham - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
York - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
Leeds - Nottingham (changing at EMI)

I'm not including journeys from NE England to Derby being faster via East Midlands Interchange as they are possible without changing at the moment but I suspect they will also be quicker via HS2. This also excludes faster journeys from Birmingham to places like Darlington, Wigan, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie and Motherwell that don't have city status.

So Birmingham does quite nicely despite the dog's-leg exit to the north, but I'm not convinced that the change at EMI to a slow and uncomfortable tram into Nottingham is going to be so attractive. But I note that your list includes no non-London benefits at all for Leeds and Manchester, which are large economic centres every bit as significant as Birmingham.

 

[Altnabreac]

So Birmingham does quite nicely despite the dog's-leg exit to the north, but I'm not convinced that the change at EMI to a slow and uncomfortable tram into Nottingham is going to be so attractive. But I note that your list includes no non-London benefits at all for Leeds and Manchester, which are large economic centres every bit as significant as Birmingham.

EMI will have trains to Nottingham as well as trams. Changing trains won't be an issue for Nottingham bound travellers from Newcastle, Durham and York because they have to change to get to Nottingham at present. So no additional hassle but a timesaving.

Leeds and Manchester both have quicker services to Birmingham. You're quite right to point out I forgot to put Manchester - Birmingham on the list above so it is actually 15 non London city pairs with improved journey times.

There are plenty of things to complain about in life but suggesting a full HS2 Phase 2 build does not help any non London journeys is really just inaccurate.

 

[The Ham]

There are plenty of things to complain about in life but suggesting a full HS2 Phase 2 build does not help any non London journeys is really just inaccurate.

Your posts also miss out the fact that by removing the existing long distance services from the likes of Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds there will be more track and platform space for local services. However because they haven't been listed (as no one knows yet) they are forgotten about.

I would also add in Southampton as a city which will benefit from HS2, in that by getting to OOC journey times for getting to Manchester and Leeds will be significantly quicker and probably more frequent than at present. Although it would require changes between trains, however for those who wish to use the direct services these would be less busy and so they would still benefit.

I'm sure if you were to look at lots of other cities you would find lots of pairings which would benefit even though they aren't on the HS2 network.

 

[DavidGrain]

Really the proposed Birmingham International station is a wasted opportunity, the existing station should be rebuilt with classic platforms interleaved with HS2 ones

The proposed station is Birmingham Interchange, the existing station is Birmingham International, (although the Airport has dropped International from its name).
Yes it does sound silly to build a new station for HS2 less than a mile from an existing mainline station. Don't you think the HS2 planners thought that as well? So why did they chose the final (not ideal) plan to have a separate station?

Rebuilding International to take HS2 would have meant that HS2 would meet the Birmingham-Coventry line somewhere near the existing Hampton in Arden station and leaving somewhere near the existing station of Marston Green. Now remember that a high speed line requires (I am told) a minimum radius of 7km so curves both before and definitely after Birmingham International would be required. It might be possible to avoid demolition of houses in Hampton in Arden although the line would have to run close to the village. However further north there would be no choice but to plough through the massive Birmingham overspil housing estate of Chelmesley Wood. Also remember that one side of the line is the Airport and the other is the National Exhibition Centre so a land take from them would be inevitable.

A new Birmingham Interchange station then became the inevitable compromise. So could the Birmingham-Coventry line be diverted into this station? Yes but that would take it away from is intended purpose of serving the airport and the NEC.

 

[si404]

What on earth are you on about? Loads of people get off at Stratford as they can link into the city and Docklands very easily from there

From HS1 - certainly. From HS2? There's not really much point, given OOC exists with the Elizabeth line to go to Docklands, East London, etc without having to walk between stations.

I'm having some deja vu from this thread less than a month ago, whereby people suggest that Euston-Pancakes is such a long walk that it needs a multi-billion pound solution, but then also suggest that people are happy to walk a similar distance in East London that they wouldn't walk in Central London, despite there being an easier alternative...

 

[B&I]

Here is a list of non London City pairs that will have faster services post HS2 Phase 2, using only places with official UK city status and only those services listed in the HS2 modelled Phase 2b business case:
Edinburgh - Birmingham
Glasgow - Birmingham
Carlisle - Birmingham
Lancaster - Birmingham
Preston - Birmingham
Newcastle - Birmingham
Durham - Birmingham
York - Birmingham
Leeds - Birmingham
Sheffield - Birmingham
Newcastle - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
Durham - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
York - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
Leeds - Nottingham (changing at EMI)
And Manchester - Birmingham which I forgot. Thanks Senex

I'm not including journeys from NE England to Derby being faster via East Midlands Interchange as they are possible without changing at the moment but I suspect they will also be quicker via HS2. This also excludes faster journeys from Birmingham to places like Darlington, Wigan, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie and Motherwell that don't have city status.

So, you can get to Birmingham a bit faster from certain cities (assuming central Nottingham will take no longer to get to with the added tram journey, and that there will be an HS2 Birmingham-Sheffield service). Is that someone's idea of a national network ?

 

[B&I]

I see. Improvements HS2 provides only 'count' if they comprise city centre to city centre services using entirely new infrastructure for the whole journey and are currently included in the business case. I would suggest this is a somewhat artificial constraint which has little bearing on judging the merits of HS2.



So what route are you going to use to serve (say) Birmingham to Leeds? How would it be materially different to that currently proposed?

Sorry, I'm supposed to add in speculative concepts like 'NPR' into my analysis of the benefits which will be provided by HS2 ?

I don't know the Birmingham-Sheffield route well enough to know whether any great gains can be made on capacity or speed without a completely new line, though I have a suspicion that electrifying this and other regional main lines, and running trains of adequate length on them, will help. I don't claim to be omniscient, unlike most of HS2's proponents

 

[B&I]

Where's the capacity on the GWML for an additional 9tph (minimum) of fast line services, please?

9 tph from London to Birmingham ? How much fresh air can travel between 2 cities ? What I was suggesting was a bypass line forking, with one fork to somewhere around Solihull and another to the Trent Valley section of the WCML. Do I remember correctly that there are 2 track stretches of the GWR route into Brum which could be restored to 4 tracks ?

 

[Altnabreac]

1 regional city gets connected to 2 others. That's a really, really impressive development which will close the north-south gap overnight. Oh wait, it isn't and it won't

So, you can get to Birmingham a bit faster from certain cities (assuming central Nottingham will take no longer to get to with the added tram journey, and that there will be an HS2 Birmingham-Sheffield service). Is that someone's idea of a national network ?

There seems to be a mistake here. What you meant to post was:

Oh, I was wrong when I thought it was only 2 city pairs that gain faster journeys.

Thank you for pointing out it is actually 15 city pairs. I'm still not a big fan of HS2 but people travelling from Carlisle to Birmingham and Newcastle to Nottingham will have improved journey times so it isn't just London that benefits.

Lets hope even more cities get added to the service pattern later and the High Speed network gets extended northwards to improve even more journey time city pairs

 

[quantinghome]

So, you can get to Birmingham a bit faster from certain cities (assuming central Nottingham will take no longer to get to with the added tram journey, and that there will be an HS2 Birmingham-Sheffield service). Is that someone's idea of a national network ?

A bit faster? Come off it mate. The Leeds-Birmingham journey time drops to under an hour. Leeds - East Midlands in about 30 minutes.

If you look at the population distribution of the UK the HS2 network connects the main centres over the 'trunk' of England in a reasonably efficient configuration. The missing part is a transpennine connection, for which plans are being developed.

Criticism is easy, but I notice you have given no details of YOUR idea of a national network. If you can't actually spell out a better alternative I'd suggest your criticism is misplaced.

 

[si404]

I would also add in Southampton as a city which will benefit from HS2, in that by getting to OOC journey times for getting to Manchester and Leeds will be significantly quicker and probably more frequent than at present. Although it would require changes between trains, however for those who wish to use the direct services these would be less busy and so they would still benefit.

The only place they could sensibly single-change to a train to OOC is Reading though*, unless the HEx to Woking happens. As such, the direct services will be as-rammed south of Reading, and frequencies would remain the same 1.5 tph northward. There's benefits, but they are tenuous and limited.

And, with B&I, anything that doesn't directly serve Liverpool (with captive infrastructure, or its not really doing so) is automatically not going to be 'national.' But anything that does directly serve Liverpool, even if it misses off the entire SW or whatever, is 'national'. There's no need to bring in dubious arguments to get Southampton involved on the HS2 action - all that matters here is benefits to Liverpool.

*Unsensible options include Westbury, Bath, Bristol, Oxford, Banbury, Birmingham International-Interchange, etc. Clapham Junction isn't an option as there's now no WLL stop at OOC.

 

[B&I]

There seems to be a mistake here. What you meant to post was:

Ah, sorry, I forgot to figure in the benefits to cathedral cities, served by 'classic compatibles', approaching 200 miles away from the points where HS2 ends. I must have been distracted by the fact that HS2 doesn't serve 1 of Britain's 10 biggest cities at all, doesn't come within 40 miles of another one, and doesn't actually connect anywhere to anywhere outside London, Brum and an obscure suburb of Nottingham. Do forgive me for pointing out that HS2 is largely designed to get some people to London quicker, and is unlikely to benefit most regional rail passengers

 

[B&I]

A bit faster? Come off it mate. The Leeds-Birmingham journey time drops to under an hour. Leeds - East Midlands in about 30 minutes.

If you look at the population distribution of the UK the HS2 network connects the main centres over the 'trunk' of England in a reasonably efficient configuration. The missing part is a transpennine connection, for which plans are being developed.

Criticism is easy, but I notice you have given no details of YOUR idea of a national network. If you can't actually spell out a better alternative I'd suggest your criticism is misplaced.

Well, I would have started with the transpennine connection as the first part, recognising that east-west connections across the north of England are third world standard, while most of the existing links to and from London are actually reasonably good.

I have made suggestions for improvements in a previous post. I can go into tedious detail if you want, but I suspect you'll be uninterested in the slightest deviation from The Word According To HS2 Limited

 

[B&I]

The only place they could sensibly single-change to a train to OOC is Reading though*, unless the HEx to Woking happens. As such, the direct services will be as-rammed south of Reading, and frequencies would remain the same 1.5 tph northward. There's benefits, but they are tenuous and limited.

And, with B&I, anything that doesn't directly serve Liverpool (with captive infrastructure, or its not really doing so) is automatically not going to be 'national.' But anything that does directly serve Liverpool, even if it misses off the entire SW or whatever, is 'national'. There's no need to bring in dubious arguments to get Southampton involved on the HS2 action - all that matters here is benefits to Liverpool.

*Unsensible options include Westbury, Bath, Bristol, Oxford, Banbury, Birmingham International-Interchange, etc. Clapham Junction isn't an option as there's now no WLL stop at OOC.

Not entirely sure what you're talking about. I want to see all major intercity lines in this country improved, including down to the south coast, as well as those to Liverpool and other underserved major cities like Bradford, and improvements to major non-London routes like Plymouth-York and Southampton-Brum. HS2 brings about little of this

 

[Altnabreac]

Ah, sorry, I forgot to figure in the benefits to cathedral cities, served by 'classic compatibles', approaching 200 miles away from the points where HS2 ends. I must have been distracted by the fact that HS2 doesn't serve 1 of Britain's 10 biggest cities at all, doesn't come within 40 miles of another one, and doesn't actually connect anywhere to anywhere outside London, Brum and an obacure suburb of Nottingham. Do forgive me for pointing out that HS2 is largely designed to get some people to London quicker, and is unlikely to benefit most regional rail passengers

Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Newcastle, Durham, York, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Manchester and Birmingham all get better non London services but none of that is of any benefit because Liverpool only sees a reduction in journey time to London.

I think it is you who is the one who is obsessed.

As someone based in Glasgow I have similar concerns about Liverpudlians about HS2. By reducing London - Manchester journey times the comparative advantage of Glasgow is worsened even though overall journey time from London - Glasgow is reduced. That doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Glasgow gets benefits from HS2.

The answer to that comparative journey time issue is the same as the answer for Liverpool. Encourage deployment of more high speed track to further reduce journey times. And frankly its more likely that Liverpool will have 100% dedicated high speed line before Glasgow does.

 

[Hetlana]

A bit faster? Come off it mate. The Leeds-Birmingham journey time drops to under an hour. Leeds - East Midlands in about 30 minutes.

If you look at the population distribution of the UK the HS2 network connects the main centres over the 'trunk' of England in a reasonably efficient configuration. The missing part is a transpennine connection, for which plans are being developed.

Criticism is easy, but I notice you have given no details of YOUR idea of a national network. If you can't actually spell out a better alternative I'd suggest your criticism is misplaced.

One question is what will happen to the Crosscountry franchise - the central core of which runs from Birmingham to Leeds. Will the longer distance trains (ie Bristol-Edinburgh) be diverted onto HS2? If so, I hope it results in the electrification of the rest of the Crosscountry route.

 

[LOL The Irony]

HS2's problem is that it's too short. It should be extended to Glasgow & Edinburgh.

 

[quantinghome]

Well, I would have started with the transpennine connection as the first part, recognising that east-west connections across the north of England are third world standard, while most of the existing links to and from London are actually reasonably good.

So it's the order in which the links are created, rather than the links themselves, which you are objecting to?

I use the train from Leeds-Manchester and Leeds-Birmingham on a fairly regular basis. Both are as bad as each other, although at least the transpennines are frequent. Looking at cross-country, the current hourly service from Leeds to Birmingham is inadequate but the existing line is already busy serving commuter as well as long distance passengers, so what's to be done? A short term solution would be to run longer trains - you could do that with no new infrastructure. I imagine you could also shave a few minutes here and there with some infrastructure interventions. Maybe you could even get the journey time down to 1hr40, who knows. But longer term you've got to build new track to create substantially more capacity and no amount of small scale tinkering is going to cut it compared to a brand new line that gets the journey done in under an hour.

 

[quantinghome]

One question is what will happen to the Crosscountry franchise - the central core of which runs from Birmingham to Leeds. Will the longer distance trains (ie Bristol-Edinburgh) be diverted onto HS2? If so, I hope it results in the electrification of the rest of the Crosscountry route.

That's a criticism I have of HS2. There doesn't seem to be any facility for direct onward journeys to the southwest from Birmingham.

 

[Clip]

From HS1 - certainly. From HS2? There's not really much point, given OOC exists with the Elizabeth line to go to Docklands, East London, etc without having to walk between stations.

I'm having some deja vu from this thread less than a month ago, whereby people suggest that Euston-Pancakes is such a long walk that it needs a multi-billion pound solution, but then also suggest that people are happy to walk a similar distance in East London that they wouldn't walk in Central London, despite there being an easier alternative...

Ive never said once about it going down south - you appear to have taken my post out of context with what was written and why - I even quoted someone too for that reply so ive no idea what youre wibbling on about

 

[The Ham]

That's a criticism I have of HS2. There doesn't seem to be any facility for direct onward journeys to the southwest from Birmingham.

It is an area of concern for many. However I would suggest that not building HS2 because it doesn't provide for everything would be a bad move.

I wouldn't be surprised if such a provision was provided at a later date, however the cost of providing every such option would mean that nothing was built, rather than something which allows us to build it at a later date.

 

[B&I]

Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Newcastle, Durham, York, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Manchester and Birmingham all get better non London services but none of that is of any benefit because Liverpool only sees a reduction in journey time to London.

I think it is you who is the one who is obsessed.

As someone based in Glasgow I have similar concerns about Liverpudlians about HS2. By reducing London - Manchester journey times the comparative advantage of Glasgow is worsened even though overall journey time from London - Glasgow is reduced. That doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Glasgow gets benefits from HS2.

The answer to that comparative journey time issue is the same as the answer for Liverpool. Encourage deployment of more high speed track to further reduce journey times. And frankly its more likely that Liverpool will have 100% dedicated high speed line before Glasgow does.

I didn't say HS2 provided no benefit. I challenged the notion that it brings about any substantial improvement in connections between provincial cities (except Birmingham and a limited number of other places).

Because I look at railways in their broader social and economic context, rather than just as a way of getting around, or a big shiny real-life trainset, I cannot be as blasé as you about the comparative economic advantages that differing HS2 journey times, service frequency and connectivity levels bring about. A reduction in London-Liverpool journey times is frankly sod all use when a city up the road is going to be 30 minutes per leg of journey closer to London, and 45 minutes per leg closer to Birmingham. It has already been said, on reasonably good authority, that Channel 4 has not shortlisted Liverpool for one of its new bases because other cities will have better connectivity post-HS2. This reflects the KPMG report, only diclosed after a FoI request, which showed that, uniquely among cities 'served' by HS2, Liverpool would potentially suffer economic shrinkage as a result of it.

I don't think it's being 'obsessed' to criticise a transport project which potentially does this sort of damage to the city you live and work in, and I'm tired of the lazy clichés applied by some on here to those of us who question the railway establishment's way of doing things.

If it were down to me, I'd like to see new railways blanketing Britain, and a colossal modal shift away from private road transport and on to rail. However, if we muat remain within current spending constraints, I feel that we could build a much better value railway network, with a far greater geographic spread of benefits, if we could avoid throwing all our eggs in the basket of a single line which benefits only a select handful of places

 

[B&I]

So it's the order in which the links are created, rather than the links themselves, which you are objecting to?

I use the train from Leeds-Manchester and Leeds-Birmingham on a fairly regular basis. Both are as bad as each other, although at least the transpennines are frequent. Looking at cross-country, the current hourly service from Leeds to Birmingham is inadequate but the existing line is already busy serving commuter as well as long distance passengers, so what's to be done? A short term solution would be to run longer trains - you could do that with no new infrastructure. I imagine you could also shave a few minutes here and there with some infrastructure interventions. Maybe you could even get the journey time down to 1hr40, who knows. But longer term you've got to build new track to create substantially more capacity and no amount of small scale tinkering is going to cut it compared to a brand new line that gets the journey done in under an hour.

It's not just a question of the order of things. 'NPR' is a twinkle in the milkman's eye in real-life railway terms. If there were a definitive.plan, enabling legislation and funding in place at least we could have some confidence that it might actually be built