High Speed Rail - food for thought

[Shrop]

Out of interest I looked up the High Speed Rail mileages for Western European countries, with a criterion for high speed of 300kph.

There are five large countries in Western Europe, namely France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the UK, the next largest after these is less than half the size of any of these first five, so it seems reasonable to compare these with each other, especially since the largest, France, is about the same distance from one end to the other as the smallest, ie the UK.

It seems the UK has less than 10% of the mileage of any of these other four countries, and even that mileage isn’t domestic, it only serves Europe. One day when we eventually get HS2, we will still have less than a quarter of the next nearest mileage of HSR, or a considerably smaller fraction if you only count domestic routes, and for many years into the future it looks like the UK won’t be getting any more HSR.

I know from previous responses to my comments on these boards, that many people think differently to how I do when I want to think the UK is at or near the forefront of rail advances, but in terms of HSR we really are getting left behind. Other countries see benefits in having HSR, while in the UK we seem to prioritise stopping trains more often and serving airports, the latter being strangely at odds with promoting sustainable travel.

Stepping outside Europe, countries such as Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, South Korea and Turkey all have a lot more HSR than the UK does, and that’s without even mentioning China and Japan. Japan isn’t vastly bigger than the UK, but they’ve had a sizeable HSR network in operation for decades.

Comparing the reasons for building HSR, people say “Ah well, the UK has a much greater population than France so it’s easier for them”, but tell that to the Japanese who have having a much bigger population than the UK. And how about Japan also having well over 200 mountains, all bigger than Snowdon to contend with?

Finally, just think about our present fastest trains from London to Glasgow or Edinburgh, which take around four and a half hours. Then think about the Chinese trains which run from Shanghai to Beijing, taking the same time, for a distance which is further than from London to Glasgow AND BACK AGAIN.

Interesting food for thought, always interested to hear comments!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Everything is possible with 3 things.
1. Time
2. Money
3. Political will

Never ever underestimate number 3

 

[pdeaves]

I know it does not substantially change the point of the original post, but most of our current high speed route is used for domestic services (known as 'Javelin').

 

[Shrop]

I know it does not substantially change the point of the original post, but most of our current high speed route is used for domestic services (known as 'Javelin').

Yes but the original post was about 300kmh services, I thought Javelin trains were slower that, at 225kph?

 

[southern442]

The UK has a similar size population to France, but a very different shape - we are quite thin by comparison so we need less network to connect us together. I'm sure you'd agree a second north-south high speed line (in addition to HS2) would be overkill. Whereas France needs several radiating out from Paris to connect up all the relevant bits.

 

[Darandio]

and that’s without even mentioning China and Japan. Japan isn’t vastly bigger than the UK, but they’ve had a sizeable HSR network in operation for decades.

Define decades? Didn't Japan only start running at 300km/h near the turn of the millenium?

 

[Shrop]

The UK has a similar size population to France, but a very different shape - we are quite thin by comparison so we need less network to connect us together. I'm sure you'd agree a second north-south high speed line (in addition to HS2) would be overkill. Whereas France needs several radiating out from Paris to connect up all the relevant bits.

Italy isn't a greatly different shape to the UK but they have far more HSR. Providing an HSR which runs well under half way to Glasgow isn't really providing even one line, and the Eastern side of the country isn't getting HSR even half way to Tyneside. And nothing at all towards South Wales, or XC.

 

[Meole]

UK has an extremely competitive short service aero sector which compensates for the slow trains to an extent.

 

[Shrop]

Define decades? Didn't Japan only start running at 300km/h near the turn of the millenium?

Yes, they did run more slowly in the 1960s, but as I understand it they were neverthesless running at faster speeds in the 1960s than any train in the UK does over half a century later. (Apart from on the HS1 route).

 

[Bald Rick]

Population density absolutely is an issue. Whilst the U.K. population density is comfortably the highest of the ‘big 5’, that includes vast tracts of nothingness in Scotland and Wales (crucially, not on route to anywhere). I forget the exact stat but something like 3/4 of the U.K. population lives in a third of the area, roughly anywhere south / east of Blackpool.

France and Spain have largely built their high speed lines through fields, or in the latter case almost desert. This really helps with the cost, no neighbours to annoy, many fewer roads, utilities etc to cater for. Etc. It also helps with the space between reasonably sized settlements - The LGVs from Paris to Bordeaux (about the same distance as London to Lockerbie) has only one settlement on the route with more than 100,000 residents - Tours. Then Poitiers (80k) and Angoulême (45k). There Is little else in the way, which also means the trains don’t need to stop.

Another point is that contrary to popular opinion, we already had (indeed have) a very good network of fast and frequent services between the major cities. This is something that was sorely lacking in most of the rest of europe save for a few key corridors. Therefore the gain from new higher speed lines is less - more stops and less time gained.

having made the case for the defence, I do think that the U.K. took rather too long to realise it needed a high speed line on the key corridor London - Birmingham - Manchester - Scotland. I can’t see any other being built after that, though.

One very pedantic point: Germany only has c500km of 300kph high speed line; much of its ‘new line’ network is at 250 or 280, and is often upgraded existing lines.

 

[hexagon789]

Define decades? Didn't Japan only start running at 300km/h near the turn of the millenium?

Yes, the original Shinkansen were 210km/h, pushed to 220 in the 1980s.

Yes, they did run more slowly in the 1960s, but as I understand it they were neverthesless running at faster speeds in the 1960s than any train in the UK does over half a century later. (Apart from on the HS1 route).

Key point - until the opening of the LGV Atlantique, the UK ran more trains scheduled to run at 100mph or greater than any other nation. Now we may have had a 125mph ceiling but absolute maximum speeds aren't everything, having fast secondary routes can be just as important.

 

[D6130]

UK has an extremely competitive short service aero sector which compensates for the slow trains to an extent.

Very true....but the comprehensive high-speed rail networks in France and Italy have virtually seen off domestic air competition in those countries - which can only be good for the environment.

 

[javelin]

The UK doesn't need millions of kilometres of high speed lines, it isn't particularly large with widely-spaced major urban centres. Look at NPR, it was never going to be 300 km/h because it doesn't need to be, the stops are all too close together to make it worthwhile.

HS2 will connect London, Birmingham and Manchester, and additionally shorten journeys from e.g. Scotland; it will serve the majority of the UK population. You couldn't possibly do that with just a few hundreds of kilometres of track in most major nations.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

but in terms of HSR we really are getting left behind.

I took my first trip on a TGV over forty years ago, albeit then at less than 330kph - was it 260kph initially on the LGV Sud Est?

Key point - until the opening of the LGV Atlantique, the UK ran more trains scheduled to run at 100mph or greater than any other nation. Now we may have had a 125mph ceiling but absolute maximum speeds aren't everything, having fast secondary routes can be just as important.

We hit 125mph with HST in the mid seventies on GWML and ECML and with a few exceptions have not added routes at this speed since then - and end to end times is the 70s were generally superior to those of today due to changes in stopping patterns perhaps in response to market demands but to the detriment of the major cities which enjoyed the fast connections to London. Probably not practical but ideally an extra stop would be compensated for by a speed increase elsewhere to maintain journey times between the key centres.
The headline exceptions are WCML reaching 125 but only with tilt, and relatively recently some sections of MML upgraded to 125 - and maybe I have missed a few other odd stretches here and there - but otherwise upgrading to 110mph became the limit. Sheffield to London is around 30 miles shorter than Leeds to London or Manchester to London but the fastest journeys take slightly longer. Whilst absolute maximum speeds aren't everything, and they do cost £££, and not every route enjoys the potential for such higher speeds, they do help make end to end journey times competitive, and at the same time whilst some secondary routes have been improved others have remained pretty static.

The UK has been well and truly left behind and is unlikely to ever catch up.

 

[D6130]

The UK has been well and truly left behind and is unlikely to ever catch up.

Sadly, I have to agree.

 

[hexagon789]

I took my first trip on a TGV over forty years ago, albeit then at less than 330kph - was it 260kph initially on the LGV Sud Est?

We hit 125mph with HST in the mid seventies on GWML and ECML and with a few exceptions have not added routes at this speed since then - and end to end times is the 70s were generally superior to those of today due to changes in stopping patterns perhaps in response to market demands but to the detriment of the major cities which enjoyed the fast connections to London. Probably not practical but ideally an extra stop would be compensated for by a speed increase elsewhere to maintain journey times between the key centres.
The headline exceptions are WCML reaching 125 but only with tilt, and relatively recently some sections of MML upgraded to 125 - and maybe I have missed a few other odd stretches here and there - but otherwise upgrading to 110mph became the limit. Sheffield to London is around 30 miles shorter than Leeds to London or Manchester to London but the fastest journeys take slightly longer. Whilst absolute maximum speeds aren't everything, and they do cost £££, and not every route enjoys the potential for such higher speeds, they do help make end to end journey times competitive, and at the same time whilst some secondary routes have been improved others have remained pretty static.

The UK has been well and truly left behind and is unlikely to ever catch up.

Oh definitely, frequencies have also increased but the added stops can only be offset so much by improved acceleration when linespeeds get no higher.

The original HST patterns are a good example because the infrastructure isn't hugely different -

Paddington to Bristol was hourly but trains off-peak called only at Reading or Swindon alternating and Bath.

Similarly, King's Cross to Edinburgh was hourly but trains were usually Darlington and Newcastle only one hour with York and Berwick added every other hour.

If those stopping patterns across the InterCity-type network persisted I'm sure journey times would be shorter.

I think we are also victims of geography though, we don't have the vast open spaces of Spain or France and the long-distance network is quite London-centric unlike Germany where there are multiple cities vying for equal trade.

 

[Shrop]

Population density absolutely is an issue. Whilst the U.K. population density is comfortably the highest of the ‘big 5’, that includes vast tracts of nothingness in Scotland and Wales (crucially, not on route to anywhere). I forget the exact stat but something like 3/4 of the U.K. population lives in a third of the area, roughly anywhere south / east of Blackpool.

France and Spain have largely built their high speed lines through fields, or in the latter case almost desert. This really helps with the cost, no neighbours to annoy, many fewer roads, utilities etc to cater for. Etc. It also helps with the space between reasonably sized settlements - The LGVs from Paris to Bordeaux (about the same distance as London to Lockerbie) has only one settlement on the route with more than 100,000 residents - Tours. Then Poitiers (80k) and Angoulême (45k). There Is little else in the way, which also means the trains don’t need to stop.

To reiterate my earlier point ... "Comparing the reasons for building HSR, people say “Ah well, the UK has a much greater population than France so it’s easier for them”, but tell that to the Japanese who have having a much bigger population than the UK. And how about Japan also having well over 200 mountains, all bigger than Snowdon to contend with?"

Another point is that contrary to popular opinion, we already had (indeed have) a very good network of fast and frequent services between the major cities. This is something that was sorely lacking in most of the rest of europe save for a few key corridors. Therefore the gain from new higher speed lines is less - more stops and less time gained.

Another of my earlier points was "... just think about our present fastest trains from London to Glasgow or Edinburgh, which take around four and a half hours. Then think about the Chinese trains which run from Shanghai to Beijing, taking the same time, for a distance which is further than from London to Glasgow AND BACK AGAIN." So, given that the Chinese can do a distance of London to Glasgow and back, as quickly as we can do it just one way (and just as frequently too), our services must by definition only be half as fast as theirs. So, far from UK services being fast, that makes ours pretty slow by comparison, and even though the requirements of our respective countries are different, it still leaves the UK a long way from being a world leader in rail travel.

having made the case for the defence, I do think that the U.K. took rather too long to realise it needed a high speed line on the key corridor London - Birmingham - Manchester - Scotland. I can’t see any other being built after that, though.

I agree, I can't see anything being built after that either. Except that HS2 isn't going even half way to Glasgow. I think we're taking far too long, right now, to realise that a high speed line all the way to Glasgow/Edinburgh, would be a good idea, as would HSR from London to South Wales, and to Sheffield/Leeds/Newcastle. And from Sheffield to Bristol/Cardiff. And from Birmingham to Southampton. Only if all of these were built might we be able to claim that the UK is even among the top ten in world rail travel. But sadly I fear we will slip further and further behind because we're to good at focussing on why we can't do things, rather than on how we can.

I believe we're fools to think we can continue our reliance on road travel (and air) for all of our future needs, but the longer we shelve our rail aspirations, the harder it will be to do anything about it. Sadly we may already be beyond the point of no return for getting much future for UK railways, thus condemning ourselves for ever to the futility of trying to squeeze more and more out of a network that is already under immense pressure, and already fails to cope far too often.

 

[Bald Rick]

Very true....but the comprehensive high-speed rail networks in France and Italy have virtually seen off domestic air competition in those countries - which can only be good for the environment.

Au contraire - domestic aviation in France and Italy is still very much alive. Despite having perfectly suitable high speed rail between them, there are still better than hourly flights between Paris & Marseille, or Milan and Rome. There’s more flights between Paris and Nice than there are between London and Glasgow.

I took my first trip on a TGV over forty years ago, albeit then at less than 330kph - was it 260kph initially on the LGV Sud Est?

270. Only upgraded relatively recently, and some stretches are still 270 IIRC

We hit 125mph with HST in the mid seventies on GWML and ECML and with a few exceptions have not added routes at this speed since then

Those few exceptions being the WCML, MML, parts of the Cross Country NE / SW route, and the construction of HS1. More than doubled!

To reiterate my earlier point ... "Comparing the reasons for building HSR, people say “Ah well, the UK has a much greater population than France so it’s easier for them”, but tell that to the Japanese who have having a much bigger population than the UK. And how about Japan also having well over 200 mountains, all bigger than Snowdon to contend with?"

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Japanese population is overwhelmingly on the coastal plain, and for the most part the mountains are irrelevant. Also the Japanese railway ‘intercity’ system pre Shinkansen was woeful, low capacity and very slow. Unlike ours pre the ‘high speed’ evolution. They had to build new railway so may as well make it a quick one.

So, given that the Chinese can do a distance of London to Glasgow and back, as quickly as we can do it just one way (and just as frequently too), our services must by definition only be half as fast as theirs.

Half as quick (time), not half as fast (speed). But in principle, agreed. Those Chinese trains don’t stop intermediately though, I don’t think, and certainly not 6-7 times. That alone takes half an hour on the Glasgows. Also, Beijing and Shanghai do have a combined population not far off the whole of England, which suggests there would be demand for non-stop services.

I believe we're fools to think we can continue our reliance on road travel (and air) for all of our future needs,

Why do you say that? History has shown that the U.K. economy has largely relied on road for the last 2,000 years. In the motorised era, Road has been the predominant method of transport here and virtually everywhere in the world. Why would that change?

I agree that high speed rail has a role - goodness I’ve advocated it more than most (and claim a small amount of credit for persuading Government on it 15 years ago) - but it is the answer for only certain specific transport demand.

 

[Shrop]

Why do you say that? History has shown that the U.K. economy has largely relied on road for the last 2,000 years. In the motorised era, Road has been the predominant method of transport here and virtually everywhere in the world. Why would that change?

When you look at roads for 1900 of the last 2000 years, they had very little traffic on them, it's only in the last 100 years that traffic has grown much. And of that last 100 years, it's only in the last 10 years that there has been much concern about the environmental aspects of it. Actually environmental aspects were a source of considerable concern when I studied transport at university in the 1970s, but throughout my entire career since then, there has been a huge love affair between people and cars which has been more powerful than environmental concerns.

However, I do think we would do well to be prepared to change our habits to at least some extent (towards more sustainable travel), to which end an improved rail system (with appropriate connectivity) could be a great way to offer this to a lot of people. But as I say, I think we may already be beyond the point of no return, ie it's too easy (and increasingly so) to find reasons not to improve railways in the UK, which leaves us trying to squeeze ever more out of a finite system, which is always a recipe for unreliable services.

 

[Bald Rick]

When you look at roads for 1900 of the last 2000 years, they had very little traffic on them, it's only in the last 100 years that traffic has grown much. And of that last 100 years, it's only in the last 10 years that there has been much concern about the environmental aspects of it. Actually environmental aspects were a source of considerable concern when I studied transport at university in the 1970s, but throughout my entire career since then, there has been a huge love affair between people and cars which has been more powerful than environmental concerns.

However, I do think we would do well to be prepared to change our habits to at least some extent (towards more sustainable travel), to which end an improved rail system (with appropriate connectivity) could be a great way to offer this to a lot of people. But as I say, I think we may already be beyond the point of no return, ie it's too easy (and increasingly so) to find reasons not to improve railways in the UK, which leaves us trying to squeeze ever more out of a finite system, which is always a recipe for unreliable services.

I certainly studied the negative impacts of road transport on the environment well over 30 years ago, and that was in the days of leaded petrol, no catalytic converters, and - very relevant now - electric cars being a distant dream. I don’t want to get into an argument about a largely electrified road network, but it will happen, and within the next decade or so. And this will take away one of the environmental disadvantages of road transport.

For what it’s worth I think the strategic road network has largely reached its final state. There has certainly been more money spent on expanding and improving the rail network than the road network for the last 20 years, and will be for the next 20 at least.

 

[A0]

When you look at roads for 1900 of the last 2000 years, they had very little traffic on them, it's only in the last 100 years that traffic has grown much. And of that last 100 years, it's only in the last 10 years that there has been much concern about the environmental aspects of it. Actually environmental aspects were a source of considerable concern when I studied transport at university in the 1970s, but throughout my entire career since then, there has been a huge love affair between people and cars which has been more powerful than environmental concerns.

However, I do think we would do well to be prepared to change our habits to at least some extent (towards more sustainable travel), to which end an improved rail system (with appropriate connectivity) could be a great way to offer this to a lot of people. But as I say, I think we may already be beyond the point of no return, ie it's too easy (and increasingly so) to find reasons not to improve railways in the UK, which leaves us trying to squeeze ever more out of a finite system, which is always a recipe for unreliable services.

You could make the same point about the railways that for 1800 of the last 2000 years they carried virtually nothing ten carried alot in 200 years. In their own way, the railways drove the growth that led to most of what has happened since.

And railways are not without environmental impacts - as the building of HS2 is demonstrating.

The reason there has been a, to put it in your words, "a huge love affair between people and cars which has been more powerful than environmental concerns" is because cars do provide an efficient form of transport for many journeys which the rail network and other public transport services can't. It's available 24x7, it's unaffected by staffing issues, it can run to whatever time and route is most suitable rather than being 'funnelled' into a 'one size fits all' solution. Public services, by their very nature are ill equipped to provide that level of personalisation - be that health, education or transport.

"However, I do think we would do well to be prepared to change our habits to at least some extent (towards more sustainable travel)" - arguably some already are, by moving to electric cars (though I'll admit to being a refusenik on those as I think the whole charging malarkey is ridiculous and batteries make cars heavier which an engineer will tell you is innately wrong), though the anti-car lobby are now shifting the ground from carbon emissions onto congestion and whatever other negative they can find.

"But as I say, I think we may already be beyond the point of no return" - yep. You aren't going to build a railway to serve every village and hamlet, you aren't going to build a railway network which allows me to go and visit my parents 40 miles away at the drop of a hat, you aren't going to build a railway network which allows me to get to my local DIY shed this weekend etc etc.

" it's too easy (and increasingly so) to find reasons not to improve railways in the UK," a fatuous statement - the amount the railways have been improved in the last 30 years is countless - miles of electrification, modernisation of both rolling stock and stations, increase in many service levels (yes, I know we can all find the exceptions like Cross Country doesn't serve Liverpool or Dover once a day, but those services had marginal use and the paths it freed up are far better used by other services).

"which is always a recipe for unreliable services." - are Britain's railways that unreliable ? The last 2 years aren't representative - but prior to that the vast majority of trains ran to time with generally low numbers of cancellations. What do you think "good" looks like ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2022 ==

I certainly studied the negative impacts of road transport on the environment well over 30 years ago, and that was in the days of leaded petrol, no catalytic converters, and - very relevant now - electric cars being a distant dream. I don’t want to get into an argument about a largely electrified road network, but it will happen, and within the next decade or so. And this will take away one of the environmental disadvantages of road transport.

For what it’s worth I think the strategic road network has largely reached its final state. There has certainly been more money spent on expanding and improving the rail network than the road network for the last 20 years, and will be for the next 20 at least.

On the BIB - do you mean there will be no new routes or that the existing routes are not going to be upgraded ?

There is clearly a need / demand to improve capacity - and along with it safety - and I can think of several existing routes which need upgrading in the interests of both capacity and safety.

 

[mike57]

I think the biggest hurdle to High Speed Rail in the UK is the political landscape. It feels like the party in power at the time promote an improvemnt and the opposition feel duty bound to oppose it just because thats what they do. Given that there can be a change every 5 years there is no continuity. Couple this with the horrendous budget overruns and late delivery which have dogged recent major rail projects and you have a toxic mix which means politicians see the railways as a poisoned chalice. The problem is the design, build and deliver cycle is much longer than the political cycle so politicians dont see a return within their term of office.

 

[Bald Rick]

On the BIB - do you mean there will be no new routes or that the existing routes are not going to be upgraded ?

Definitely the former. For example I’d be surprised if the Lower Thames Crossing happens.

There will, of course, be some upgrades on existing routes, although much of that will be junction improvements, and linking up existing bits of dual carriageway (A303, A66, A421, A47, etc)

 

[A0]

Definitely the former. For example I’d be surprised if the Lower Thames Crossing happens.

There will, of course, be some upgrades on existing routes, although much of that will be junction improvements, and linking up existing bits of dual carriageway (A303, A66, A421, A47, etc)

Though there haven't been any "new" routes for some time now - the last "big" one was probably the M6 Toll and that was nearly 20 years ago now.

I agree in that sense that the basic "network" is probably fixed, but I can foresee a number of improvements - if I were looking just at the East of England (because I'm familiar with it), then I'd be looking at the A47 from the A1 to Norwich, the A140 from Stowmarket to Norwich and possibly the A12 from Ipswich to Lowestoft. Further over, improvements to the A1, A43 from Northampton - Stamford etc, but apart from bypasses in some places they won't be wholly new routes.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

In Spain the classic rail network was hopelessly inadequate, with a lot of the main-lines only single track and notoriously indirect due to the topography. Even between the two principal cities of Madrid and Barcelona it took over six hours, with the section from Zaragoza onwards being single track (via two possible routes) and which meandered all over the place. I did the journey once in a heavily loaded Talgo - I'd had enough of the clunking over the rail joints by the time it reached Barcelona. Today the fastest non-stop AVE takes just 2h 30m. The old Madrid to Seville main-line , the first to be replaced by an AVE route, was not for the faint-hearted either, taking a wide dog-leg to avoid the mountains and had (has) a lengthy, and steeply graded, single track section through the Despeñaperros Gorge. Travelling to Galicia was a trial too, even by the 'new' line via Zamora opened in the Franco era - I'm very much looking forward to travelling on the new AVE line which has just opened throughout, apart from the short section around Ourense. Spain also benefited considerably from EU funds which were (and still are) available.

On the populated Mediterranean coast, however, the old main-line between Barcelona, Valencia and Alicante has been substantially upgraded over the years, with new 'variants' to improve the alignment, and some completely new sections such as cutting out the deviation via Tortosa and the replacement of the single track section from Tarragona to Salou. This type of approach is probably the best we can hope for in the UK - there is scope on the WCML , for example, for some realignment north of Lancaster and perhaps a new section alongside the M6 to cut out the dog-leg via Oxenholme and Grayrigg.

​

 

[A0]

In Spain the classic rail network was hopelessly inadequate, with a lot of the main-lines only single track and notoriously indirect due to the topography. Even between the two principal cities of Madrid and Barcelona it took over six hours, with the section from Zaragoza onwards being single track (via two possible routes) and which meandered all over the place. I did the journey once in a heavily loaded Talgo - I'd had enough of the clunking over the rail joints by the time it reached Barcelona. Today the fastest non-stop AVE takes just 2h 30m. The old Madrid to Seville main-line , the first to be replaced by an AVE route, was not for the faint-hearted either, taking a wide dog-leg to avoid the mountains and had (has) a lengthy, and steeply graded, single track section through the Despeñaperros Gorge. Travelling to Galicia was a trial too, even by the 'new' line via Zamora opened in the Franco era - I'm very much looking forward to travelling on the new AVE line which has just opened throughout, apart from the short section around Ourense. Spain also benefited considerably from EU funds which were (and still are) available.

On the populated Mediterranean coast, however, the old main-line between Barcelona, Valencia and Alicante has been substantially upgraded over the years, with new 'variants' to improve the alignment, and some completely new sections such as cutting out the deviation via Tortosa and the replacement of the single track section from Tarragona to Salou. This type of approach is probably the best we can hope for in the UK - there is scope on the WCML , for example, for some realignment north of Lancaster and perhaps a new section alongside the M6 to cut out the dog-leg via Oxenholme and Grayrigg.

BIB - but with minimal gain for alot of outlay - to take an example, the distance from Lancaster to Carlisle is 70 miles.

An Avanti service is covering that in 55 minutes with two stops (Oxenholme and Penrith), so there's a 5 minute time penalty straight out.

To give a comparison, Peterborough to Kings Cross is 75 miles and fairly straight and an LNER service with 1 stop (Stevenage) also takes 55 minutes to cover that distance.

You'd be looking at penny numbers in terms of time improvement yet millions to achieve it.

 

[stuu]

The UK has been well and truly left behind and is unlikely to ever catch up.

Whilst this is probably true in terms of absolute mileage of high speed rail, what should always be born in mind is that our existing network is (and I know this an unpopular view here), superior in terms of frequency and coverage than many of our European neighbours. Spain and France run a lot of their legacy network with 2 or 3 trains a day. Renfe aren't even aware of the concept of changing trains so their journey planner will only offer a route if there is a direct train.

As Bald Rick says above, most of our population is in a small area, where absolute top speeds aren't the important factor

 

[WideRanger]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Japanese population is overwhelmingly on the coastal plain, and for the most part the mountains are irrelevant. Also the Japanese railway ‘intercity’ system pre Shinkansen was woeful, low capacity and very slow. Unlike ours pre the ‘high speed’ evolution. They had to build new railway so may as well make it a quick one.

All of this.

Also, the vast majority of the many mountains are nowhere near the areas of any substantial population (for obvious reasons, and because a lot of them are active volcanoes), and the existing Shinkansen system goes nowhere near them.

In contrast, the new Chuo Shinkansen is going under some of the mountains, but 1) it is eye-wateringly expensive, 2) links 3 urban areas that have a combined population significantly higher than the entire population of the UK, and 3) relatively few of the people living in those metro areas have a car.

 

[stuu]

All of this.

Also, the vast majority of the many mountains are nowhere near the areas of any substantial population (for obvious reasons, and because a lot of them are active volcanoes), and the existing Shinkansen system goes nowhere near them.

In contrast, the new Chuo Shinkansen is going under some of the mountains, but 1) it is eye-wateringly expensive, 2) links 3 urban areas that have a combined population significantly higher than the entire population of the UK, and 3) relatively few of the people living in those metro areas have a car.

Less per km than, er, some other projects I can think of

 

[Shrop]

I certainly studied the negative impacts of road transport on the environment well over 30 years ago, and that was in the days of leaded petrol, no catalytic converters, and - very relevant now - electric cars being a distant dream. I don’t want to get into an argument about a largely electrified road network, but it will happen, and within the next decade or so. And this will take away one of the environmental disadvantages of road transport.

A lot about a future electric road network will depend on two things, namely charging costs and charging facilities. With regard to costs, the imminent big electricity price rises will hit (hard) the confidence of the significant percentage of drivers who are considering whether or not their next car should be electric. A lot depends on whether this price hike will be just a one-off, and the future comparative petrol vs electricity prices. Government can decree all it likes now about future car manufacture, but they would rather U-turn than risk unpopularity among drivers if petrol and diesel cars look like being a better option for price and convenience, when the time comes to actually force the manufacture of them to stop. A lot of journalists are petrolheads, after all!

As for charging facilities, a great many drivers don't want the uncertainty of not knowing whether their next charge point will be unoccupied, they don't want to wait more than a few minutes even if it is unoccupied, and what about the 40% of UK households that don't have the luxury of off street parking?
I agree that this shouldn't be an argument, but it is nevertheless an interesting and necessary discussion.