Anti-HS2 animation narrated by John Bishop

[The Decapod]

You can't quantify things like this as 'important/not-important', as circumstances change all the time and what'll be vital in the short-term now might not be necessarily vital in the same period tomorrow much less long-term. At least with the promise of HS2, we have some sort of assurance/s that the long-term problems necessitating it's construction will be addressed.
I bet you can't make the same case for a 'Dawlish avoiding line'.

A Dawlish avoiding line would protect and improve train services westwards to Torbay, Plymouth and beyond to Cornwall. It would also facilitate future electrification and encourage the expansion of rail freight traffic into and out of Devon and Cornwall. In addition it would speed up the journey time between Exeter and Plymouth, and the sea wall route would become a local line.
Plymouth has a population of 260,000 and Torbay has half that, so about 400,000 people in just those two places would benefit, before adding in the population of Cornwall and a large part of Devon.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Planes might not be much faster by then, but check-in times etc. might be much quicker and airport links much better. HS2 is 'future proofed' for 250 mph line speed, although it's likely trains won't reach that speed in service. As with short-haul aircraft, train speeds, with the latest in high speed rail, of 200-220 mph, probably won't increase much - even though test trains in France have done well over 300 mph. And we don't know yet if the Japanese Maglev train will bring the big breakthrough in guided high-speed transport that Transrapid didn't quite sustain.

It is unlikely that the ancillary times involved in air travel will be able to be reduced much. The 'complete' HS2 network theoretically allows a journey time of 2hr20 from London to the Central Belt; a direct flight today from Heathrow to Edinburgh Airport is 1hr20. The journey time from the median area for people to travel from in a city will be a lot less when going to its main or HS2 railway station than it will be going to its airport as the central/HS2 railway station will be accessible from all area of a city via bus, rail, tram, metro or whatever. In comparison, airports are normally accessible only from the corridor between them and the city centre - Crossrail will improve this for London but the journey time from Canary Wharf to Heathrow is still around 40 minutes - from Canary Wharf to Euston will be between half to two-thirds of this post-Crossrail changing at TCR. After arriving at the HS2 platform, all that is required is to get through the small concourses and arrive at the right location on the limited number of platforms - it can take tens of minutes at the very least to get around Heathrow terminals whereas different sections of Euston would be no more than a few away from one another.

As soon as you are on the platform and your train is there, you can board and the train will be away within minutes. Compare this to air, where a planeload of 200 passengers will often be loaded through a single gangway and there would be minutes of waiting around on the tarmac for a take-off slot (particularly at Heathrow). By the time a London-Central Belt passenger by air would be off the ground, the rail passenger could well be all the way past Birmingham. Yes, the plane will likely then catch up but again it will have to wait to land, arrive at the gate, get the gangway arranged, get all the passengers off and then for most passengers to get their luggage from baggage reclaim.

By the time the air passenger has left the terminal, the rail passenger would likely be in Scotland at the very least and more likely already slowing down to approach the city centre stations. Most non-London airports cannot justify a dedicated fast link to their city centre by rail, so it then requires either a taxi ride or a reasonably slow ride on a tram or train to the city centre. The rail passenger will arrive well before the air, in a more civilised, environmentally-friendly and productive mode of transport.

The aviation industry has turned away from faster speeds because the cost of aviation fuel is increasing so much. That's the reason that Boeing have concentrated on their 787 and 747-8 rather than their Sonic Cruiser idea of a transonic jetliner. Indeed, it is likely that the fuel savings involved in slowing routes down slightly would be great enough to justify flights becoming slower than they are today. Because so much of the air journey time is ancillary rather than in the air, even a transonic or supersonic aircraft would not make a vast difference over the distances involved in the UK. Additionally, it does not matter if rail would be slower if rail would in fact be much more frequent - this will be the real killer advantage for future CrossCountry HSR from the West Country and Wales to the North East and Scotland because although direct flights may be faster than all-stops HSR, there is not enough demand for the same level of frequency (rail could easily be up to 2 trains an hour, whereas air does not justify more than a flight every few hours at the moment).

 

[jon0844]

That's one big advantage of rail. Bar engineering work (and some of that can be accounted for with diversionary routes, or more tracks) you can run trains 24/7 in most weathers, and there's a level of capacity that wouldn't be viable at most airports that have limited slots.

You'd need more airports, runways and loads more planes - all of which would likely make the whole airport experience even more of a nightmare.

Frankly, for travel around the UK, a network of high speed lines (or high capacity lines, as it's not just about speed) makes far more sense.

HS2 shouldn't be stopping improvements on the line(s) in Devon and Cornwall. It should be part of a whole series of infrastructure upgrades and investment, but I'm sure all of these will have huge opposition too, and then take years to happen (and cost far more on account of all the enquiries, studies, reports, changes etc).

 

[pemma]

Planes might not be much faster by then, but check-in times etc. might be much quicker and airport links much better.

Can you guarantee airport style security measures won't be introduced on HS2? Renfe have such checks on high speed trains, while if we ever run through services to the Continent the fact we aren't part of the Schengen Area would make boarding similiar to Eurostars services at St Pancras.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's one big advantage of rail. Bar engineering work (and some of that can be accounted for with diversionary routes, or more tracks) you can run trains 24/7 in most weathers, and there's a level of capacity that wouldn't be viable at most airports that have limited slots.
...
HS2 shouldn't be stopping improvements on the line(s) in Devon and Cornwall. It should be part of a whole series of infrastructure upgrades and investment, but I'm sure all of these will have huge opposition too, and then take years to happen (and cost far more on account of all the enquiries, studies, reports, changes etc).

A lot of people fly between the North and Newquay due to how long the journey takes by road or rail. HS2 won't do much to solve that.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Can you guarantee airport style security measures won't be introduced on HS2? Renfe have such checks on high speed trains, while if we ever run through services to the Continent the fact we aren't part of the Schengen Area would make boarding similiar to Eurostars services at St Pancras.

The AVE security checks are x ray scans of baggage only and were introduced in response to the Madrid train bombings. They do absolutely nothing whatsoever to improve safety as you can arrive unchecked from Paris on a TGV and not go through security to board any other AVE service from Barcelona. The security risk of a terrorist blowing themselves up in the security queue was proved by the Volgograd bombings late last year - bunching passengers up to security screen them creates a security risk that no amount of security can compensate for. If terrorists want to blow up trains they want to blow up and murder people; that will always be easier on the packed commuter and metro lines and nothing has happened since July 2005 despite no extra security being in place at the stations.

A lot of people fly between the North and Newquay due to how long the journey takes by road or rail. HS2 won't do much to solve that.

But high speed rail can be massively, spectacularly more frequent. The gaps between flights from one end of the country to another can be as long as the entire HSR journey time. A stopping CrossCountry rail service may not absolutely be as fast as air but it can carry many more passengers and thus can be more frequent, nullifying the journey time problem for the majority of people. Even then, there is still the ancillary time involved in CrossCountry air travel so really the journey time disadvantage isn't going to be as big to begin with.

 

[pemma]

But high speed rail can be massively, spectacularly more frequent. The gaps between flights from one end of the country to another can be as long as the entire HSR journey time. A stopping CrossCountry rail service may not absolutely be as fast as air but it can carry many more passengers and thus can be more frequent, nullifying the journey time problem for the majority of people. Even then, there is still the ancillary time involved in CrossCountry air travel so really the journey time disadvantage isn't going to be as big to begin with.

Let's say you're going from Stockport to Newquay on the afternoon of 6th June.

By rail depart Stockport at 14:16 and arrive at 21:20 with 2 changes (or you can depart 2 hours earlier but not later.)

A Manchester - Newquay flight leaves at 16:40 and arrives at 17:50. However, you need to get from Stockport to the Airport and go through check-in so the a suitable bus departure from Stockport is 14:20. Then you need to get from Newquay Airport in to the town. You should make the 18:25 bus arriving in Newquay at 18:53.

So the flight option overtakes the rail option leaving 2 hours earlier.

A High Speed link might change that but it would need a High Speed link from the Midlands to the South West, which isn't in the government's plans which focus on high speed links to and from London.

 

[gordonthemoron]

OTH, how many people want to travel from Stockport to Newquay?

 

[Emyr]

Northern surfers?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Deleted, Cant be bothered anymore.

 

[Emyr]

Deleted, Cant be bothered anymore.

It's sunny outside.

 

[pemma]

OTH, how many people want to travel from Stockport to Newquay?

If you want to work out timings for every town in Greater Manchester to every town in Cornwall then feel free. If I'd done Manchester to Newquay then someone would have said not everyone starts their journey at Manchester. Given the time saving for Stockport-Newquay is over 2 hours then I think you'd have to try a lot of options before you get one where rail is currently quicker.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Let's say you're going from Stockport to Newquay on the afternoon of 6th June.

By rail depart Stockport at 14:16 and arrive at 21:20 with 2 changes (or you can depart 2 hours earlier but not later.)

A Manchester - Newquay flight leaves at 16:40 and arrives at 17:50. However, you need to get from Stockport to the Airport and go through check-in so the a suitable bus departure from Stockport is 14:20. Then you need to get from Newquay Airport in to the town. You should make the 18:25 bus arriving in Newquay at 18:53.

So the flight option overtakes the rail option leaving 2 hours earlier.

A High Speed link might change that but it would need a High Speed link from the Midlands to the South West, which isn't in the government's plans which focus on high speed links to and from London.

I agree that with the current plans, it will not be made that much more possible than it is today. However, all that is realistically required for it to be possible is a HS link from Birmingham to Bristol, something that would cost only around the same as Birmingham or Manchester did (or less, possibly). Once the HS2 network is finished to Scotland and Newcastle and across the Pennines, the next logical step is for Cross Country services.

The GWML upgrade will provide a few more decades of capacity on London-West journeys and once IEPs reach Penzance the air market will not be able to last much longer. Electrifying the CrossCountry route will be very useful, but it will still not allow CrossCountry air travel to be replaced by rail, so it is entirely possible in my mind that the XC route from Birmingham to Bristol and thence across the Severn Estuary to South Wales may be built before the captive HS route from London. The incremental benefit of HSR between Bristol and London will not be particularly large because it will already be a 225km/h, high capacity railway from the IEP, electrification and resignalling programmes.

 

[starrymarkb]

It is unlikely that the ancillary times involved in air travel will be able to be reduced much. The 'complete' HS2 network theoretically allows a journey time of 2hr20 from London to the Central Belt; a direct flight today from Heathrow to Edinburgh Airport is 1hr20. The journey time from the median area for people to travel from in a city will be a lot less when going to its main or HS2 railway station than it will be going to its airport as the central/HS2 railway station will be accessible from all area of a city via bus, rail, tram, metro or whatever. In comparison, airports are normally accessible only from the corridor between them and the city centre - Crossrail will improve this for London but the journey time from Canary Wharf to Heathrow is still around 40 minutes - from Canary Wharf to Euston will be between half to two-thirds of this post-Crossrail changing at TCR. After arriving at the HS2 platform, all that is required is to get through the small concourses and arrive at the right location on the limited number of platforms - it can take tens of minutes at the very least to get around Heathrow terminals whereas different sections of Euston would be no more than a few away from one another.

As soon as you are on the platform and your train is there, you can board and the train will be away within minutes. Compare this to air, where a planeload of 200 passengers will often be loaded through a single gangway and there would be minutes of waiting around on the tarmac for a take-off slot (particularly at Heathrow). By the time a London-Central Belt passenger by air would be off the ground, the rail passenger could well be all the way past Birmingham. Yes, the plane will likely then catch up but again it will have to wait to land, arrive at the gate, get the gangway arranged, get all the passengers off and then for most passengers to get their luggage from baggage reclaim.

By the time the air passenger has left the terminal, the rail passenger would likely be in Scotland at the very least and more likely already slowing down to approach the city centre stations. Most non-London airports cannot justify a dedicated fast link to their city centre by rail, so it then requires either a taxi ride or a reasonably slow ride on a tram or train to the city centre. The rail passenger will arrive well before the air, in a more civilised, environmentally-friendly and productive mode of transport.

The aviation industry has turned away from faster speeds because the cost of aviation fuel is increasing so much. That's the reason that Boeing have concentrated on their 787 and 747-8 rather than their Sonic Cruiser idea of a transonic jetliner. Indeed, it is likely that the fuel savings involved in slowing routes down slightly would be great enough to justify flights becoming slower than they are today. Because so much of the air journey time is ancillary rather than in the air, even a transonic or supersonic aircraft would not make a vast difference over the distances involved in the UK. Additionally, it does not matter if rail would be slower if rail would in fact be much more frequent - this will be the real killer advantage for future CrossCountry HSR from the West Country and Wales to the North East and Scotland because although direct flights may be faster than all-stops HSR, there is not enough demand for the same level of frequency (rail could easily be up to 2 trains an hour, whereas air does not justify more than a flight every few hours at the moment).

If you are working at Canary Wharf then you'll use London City rather then Heathrow. Check in closes 15 minutes before departure, no takeoff queue, 70/90 seat E-jet so quick loading and unloading. Business types don't tend to have hold baggage so straight to a taxi/bus to the city.

I should add though that the LCY-EDI flight is so popular with the city companies that some restrict the number of senior employees on a particular flight in case of an accident.

Also I wouldn't hold the 747-8 up as a good example. So far it's sold a handful of aircraft to Lufthansa (who try to operate everything at some point as Lufthansa Technik service everything!) I don't think any other airlines have ordered any. As I understand it, it's trip cost matches the A380 which holds about 100 more passengers!) Plus the new stretches of the 777 with 10 across seating (a reaction to the A350), look to make the 747 obsolete.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If you are working at Canary Wharf then you'll use London City rather then Heathrow. Check in closes 15 minutes before departure, no takeoff queue, 70/90 seat E-jet so quick loading and unloading. Business types don't tend to have hold baggage so straight to a taxi/bus to the city.

I agree that for business travellers for whom minutes count and the flight times are right there will still be some air demand. However, for the majority of travellers it will still be faster to travel by rail if a 'Flying Scotsman' non-stop path were provided every hour. Time spent in the air, especially on such small planes as the E-Jets, is effectively wasted because so much of it consists of takeoff and landing and the number of business activities available in flight are limited. Theoretically, it could be possible to provide bookable meeting rooms on HS2 trains (there's an IET video of a lecture from someone at HS2 Ltd where they talk about these kinds of ideas) and there is no way that HS2 trains won't be supplied with >1Gbit/s, low-latency internet on their entire journey from platform to platform. This is 2026 we're talking about, and internet like this is something that will not be as easy or indeed possible on aircraft, allowing things like web conferencing and other business-ey things to happen on the move and without the disruption of takeoff and landing.

I should add though that the LCY-EDI flight is so popular with the city companies that some restrict the number of senior employees on a particular flight in case of an accident.

And if they choose to travel on HS2 instead they could put their entire company board on one train without needing to worry about the risk. They would be more likely to be hit by a meteorite than being involved in a high-speed crash. Small planes on short journeys are the least safe of all kinds of air journeys. Travel on HS2 would also be far superior in terms of passenger comfort and there would be a significantly lower carbon cost, which may become crucial for companies if there are penalties applied in future for unnecessary carbon output.

In my opinion, the London-Toton HS line will have an Old Oak Common-style station in the East End (not Stratford - that ship has definitely sailed). If City Airport were able to be closed it would be a perfect spot for such a station, I believe. Depending on the configuration of the lines further north, it may then be possible to get on a high speed train near the City or Canary Wharf and end up in Edinburgh or Newcastle or wherever.

Also I wouldn't hold the 747-8 up as a good example. So far it's sold a handful of aircraft to Lufthansa (who try to operate everything at some point as Lufthansa Technik service everything!) I don't think any other airlines have ordered any. As I understand it, it's trip cost matches the A380 which holds about 100 more passengers!) Plus the new stretches of the 777 with 10 across seating (a reaction to the A350), look to make the 747 obsolete.

That's very true, but my point was that Boeing and Airbus have invested in high-capacity, higher-efficiency but still subsonic aircraft because these have the best economics for airlines. The same efficiencies which may allow them to be sped up with the same fuel burn would be better used to keep them at the same speed and reduce their fuel burn.

 

[jon0844]

If you are working at Canary Wharf then you'll use London City rather then Heathrow. Check in closes 15 minutes before departure, no takeoff queue, 70/90 seat E-jet so quick loading and unloading. Business types don't tend to have hold baggage so straight to a taxi/bus to the city.

London City is indeed a great airport, but it also has limited capacity and always will. It's the limited capacity that makes it so convenient for a relatively small number of users.

Of course it's not solely for well off business passengers, but mostly.

I can remember when Stansted was like London City, although I don't recall how late you could leave it before checking in back then. Still, I can remember 10 minute check in for Eurostar from Waterloo, which I believe is no longer the case (at least not officially)?

I've also had the pleasure of flying on private planes out of RAF Northolt and Biggin Hill. Both of these were even nicer, as - within reason - the plane takes off when you are ready. Ditto with a helicopter.

Rail can't really hope to compete with any of that, and the only thing comparable might be a private car (and one that is big enough to let you relax, work or even have a meeting during travel).

If getting somewhere fast is vital, there are taxi bikes and then it simply comes down to cost as it can go to/from anywhere as long as there's a road.

 

[Deerfold]

Still, I can remember 10 minute check in for Eurostar from Waterloo, which I believe is no longer the case (at least not officially)?

10 minute check-in is available for some classes of traveller.

http://www.eurostar.com/uk-en/trave...ns/eurostar-check-in/checking-in#.U2CR96zbFug

 

[455driver]

OTH, how many people want to travel from Stockport to Newquay?

Didnt you know, Stockport is the Norths Surfing Capital!
You dont keep up wiv da yoof doo ya!

 

[pemma]

Didnt you know, Stockport is the Norths Surfing Capital!
You dont keep up wiv da yoof doo ya!

The former Summer weekend XC specials between Manchester and Newquay called at Stockport so it's not exactly a completely random journey.

Manchester-Newquay would be a similar comparison but it'd probably make the rail option even less favourable due to a higher frequency of public transport between Manchester and Manchester Airport than between Stockport and Manchester Airport.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The former Summer weekend XC specials between Manchester and Newquay called at Stockport so it's not exactly a completely random journey.

Manchester-Newquay would be a similar comparison but it'd probably make the rail option even less favourable due to a higher frequency of public transport between Manchester and Manchester Airport than between Stockport and Manchester Airport.

From Newquay Airport's website it seems that there is only one flight a day taking 1hr20. The HS2 journey time from Birmingham to Manchester is 41 minutes, which would be roughly the same as Bristol to Birmingham when the XC HSR line is built. Electrification of Cornwall during CP7/CP8 will bring the journey times to Bristol down but realistically the majority of people will still prefer travelling by rail regardless of the journey times.

There are time-sensitive journey times like London to Scotland because there is so much competition with air where absolute speed is an essential part of the HSR package of benefits. On the other hand, a journey like Newquay to Stockport is not going to be time-sensitive because the majority of travellers are leisure travellers. One single flight per day, no matter how fast, cannot compete with the comfort, reliability, connectivity and frequency of a decent rail connection. That's why today the current First Great Western service from London is so well used in the summer despite it being far longer than the flight.

 

[pemma]

but realistically the majority of people will still prefer travelling by rail regardless of the journey times.

Out of the people I know who make journeys between Cheshire/Greater Manchester and Devon/Cornwall there isn't one who's first choice is rail and I know a number of people who range from 25 to 85 in age who make such journeys. The first choice seems to be car, followed by plane (there's flights to Exeter as well as Newquay), followed by coach and then train!

You do realise on a weekday there are are only 2 complete journey options between Manchester and Newquay by rail (ignoring overtaken options) which an off-peak ticket is valid on? One departs at 12:07 and arrives at Newquay at 19:21 and the other departures at 14:07 and arrives at Newquay at 21:20. The one plane a day you refer to overtakes both of these journeys. As the off-peak return fare by train is £178 with no cheap advances* so why use the train over the faster and cheaper plane? The choice of time for the 1 flight a day was a clever move by Flybe.

In the summer there are also additional flights between Manchester and Newquay on Saturdays as well as some flights between Liverpool and Newquay.

That's why today the current First Great Western service from London is so well used in the summer despite it being far longer than the flight.

Intercity services to/from London seem to have very cheap Advance tickets available on quieter services whoever the operator is. The same doesn't apply with XC services.

 

[Oswyntail]

Out of the people I know who make journeys between Cheshire/Greater Manchester and Devon/Cornwall there isn't one who's first choice is rail and I know a number of people who range from 25 to 85 in age who make such journeys. The first choice seems to be car, followed by plane (there's flights to Exeter as well as Newquay), followed by coach and then train!....

Perhaps that would change if there were a feasible transport alternative at the destination (I suspect the coach and plane people would never travel by train even if it were free). Unless you want to stay at your destination (such as in city breaks), you pretty well need a car there. A cheap package linking train travel with car hire at the destination would be more attractive.

 

[starrymarkb]

Indeed, when I did a Rail/Air comparison from the SW to Scotland a direct XC service cost around £190 for advances, Easyjet from Bristol was £60 return.

Another Example of XC ticketing. Exeter to York with XC in order to make the last bus to Whitby. £250 using Advances! And because I'd have to leave before 09:30 the cheapest walk up is £308! - So I'll drive for about £100 of fuel.

 

[NotATrainspott]

My argument hinges upon a Birmingham-Bristol XC HSR line connected into the Manchester and Leeds spurs of HS2. Once such a line has been built, the travel market would be very, very different indeed to the current one. At the very least, a single 200m HS2 train (whether captive or classic-compatible) will have as many seats as an 11 or 12 coach Voyager/Meridian and there would be no capacity constraints preventing a far more regular service on the HS line than can be provided today. As a result, the cost of tickets would only go down and once the core passengers from Bristol to Newcastle use HSR, the air market can only enter a downward spiral for the whole area. I am not disputing that today, CrossCountry are completely and utterly hopeless and I personally would fly rather than travel long distances with them. This will change however, and when the XCML is electrified (even before HS2) there will be great improvements in what is possible.

 

[pemma]

the cost of tickets would only go down

Wasn't that the argument made in the 1990s for Eurostar tickets?

 

[dggar]

The former Summer weekend XC specials between Manchester and Newquay called at Stockport so it's not exactly a completely random journey.

Manchester-Newquay would be a similar comparison but it'd probably make the rail option even less favourable due to a higher frequency of public transport between Manchester and Manchester Airport than between Stockport and Manchester Airport.

Virtually every train From Man Pic on the Stockport route calls at Stockport.

(there are some people who are under the impression that there is a legal requirement for all trains to stop at Stockport.)

 

[NotATrainspott]

Wasn't that the argument made in the 1990s for Eurostar tickets?

I don't personally know.

There is no way that anyone could fill several 200m HS units on a Bristol-Birmingham-somewhere journey if they are going to charge the same as they do right now. Right now, one of the reasons the costs of tickets are so high is because XC have so many short trains with so few standard class seats on board despite the number of passengers wanting to travel. Replace these with any sort of train with a sufficient number of standard class seats and there is scope for the kind of prices that are seen on the full-length IC services like Virgin or East Coast.

If they build an XC HSR they aren't going to do a Eurostar and provide just less than one train an hour because that would be a waste of the money spent on the line. In any case, Eurostar still provide advance tickets at a much lower price than XC, so clearly having 400m long trains carrying 700 people each does some good for ticket prices.

Yes, other modes of travel run by competing operators may reduce their prices but there is still not going to be enough scope for them to sink the XC HSR operation. The journey time and frequency of any XC HSR will make air journeys along the same route much less popular, especially when the loss of passengers to rail would force a reduction in frequency for easyJet because they can't make their planes any smaller. Right now, coach journey times can be similar to XC ones because they spend so long trundling around the country stopping here there and everywhere.

With an XC HSR, they would be on dedicated 400km/h infrastructure and would be massively, spectacularly faster than coaches on any route. When you have 550 seats to fill on the smallest train available, with several of them running per hour, there is no problem with filling them with as many people as possible with advance tickets because it is more expensive to run an empty or half full train than it is to run a full one. That applies for all of HS2, and indeed for most train services on the classic network as well.

 

[Deerfold]

Wasn't that the argument made in the 1990s for Eurostar tickets?

Prices from 69 quid return London to Paris sounds pretty good to me - and I believe a good chuck of that is paying for tunnel access charges.

 

[HSTEd]

The smallest trainset available would likely be a variation on an AGV7 at roughly 133m long. That will have rather less than 500 seats. That is Super Voyager length really.

 

[jon0844]

Prices from 69 quid return London to Paris sounds pretty good to me - and I believe a good chuck of that is paying for tunnel access charges.

If a large chunk is for access charges to the tunnel, that bodes well for some reasonable fares to destinations further afield when Eurostar starts them, and new operators come in to provide some choice (and competition).

After all, the access charge won't be any higher if the trains then go on a lot further into mainland Europe.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The smallest trainset available would likely be a variation on an AGV7 at roughly 133m long. That will have rather less than 500 seats. That is Super Voyager length really.

I don't see any trains being ordered under 200m in length. There is a possibility of Newcastle being served with 260m single-unit classic-compatibles but these would be pretty useless once there is a captive route all the way there. With captive extensions to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle and Liverpool eventually there would be a large number of classic-compatibles freed up well before their expiry date, so future HS lines may not even need new rolling stock or new depots to service them (reducing costs, nicely). To introduce a 1/3 size of train on HS2 into the mix would not be a particularly useful idea until there are serious ideas about extending the captive routes to Aberdeen/Inverness and further into Cornwall.