Do you support High Speed 3?

[7griffinjack]

Not sure why Hull is included.

Why not?

 

[59CosG95]

Why not?

Exactly. Hull is in major need of a regeneration, and HS3 will help catalyse said regeneration by bringing more people to the city. Now, if HS3 linked into the ECML, FHT could do away with the Adelantes and use hi-speed electrics (IEP anyone?) instead.

 

[7griffinjack]

Exactly. Hull is in major need of a regeneration, and HS3 will help catalyse said regeneration by bringing more people to the city.

Spot on!

Hull hasn't had it easy in recent years. It's been hit hard by the recession and regeneration spurred by a catalyst of infrastructure improvements is just what it needs. The line between Hull and Selby is pretty much ruler straight so an upgrade of this line is probably all that will be needed.

Hull is a fantastic city underneath the surface and it has had more than its fair share of criticism over the years. Winning the 2017 Capital of Culture bid and the Siemens turbine contract have been the biggest thing to happen to the area in the long time. An upgraded rail link with other transport investments (like the A63) can only work wonders for the city.

People are saying that Hull is going to be the next Liverpool! It's certainly a place to watch. A lovely place with a proud heritage and a plethora of culture. Even friendlier people. Hopefully Hull can see the regeneration that many other northern cities have had.

Bring on HS3.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Are you in support of high speed 3?

I am in support of a high speed network. So the short answer is YES

 

[Loki]

With very little detail to go on, it's hard to say if I support it or not.

Something on a new route, that links in the present planned HS2 routes, and has duplex type stock, then yes.

But as HSTEd says, If its a horrible botch job classic line 'upgrade' then no.

Pretty much exactly this.

 

[stanley T]

Yet another expensive HS route to be built god-knows-when, while there are more important as well as cheaper priorities:

1. Reopen Buxton-Matlock, the tunnels are in good condition
2. Electrify the following:
- Manchester - Liverpool via Warrington Central (busier than the Chat Moss route)
- fill in the missing bits for Manchester- Sheffield via Hope Valley, and extend to Hull via Doncaster
- Leeds -Hull
-possibly Calderdale route as well.
3. 125mph capable tilting trains for Transpennine routes, that should bring Manchester-Leeds down to 40 mins. Liverpool-Manchester via Chat Moss and Leeds -Hull are so straight that 125mph is possible even without tilt.
4. Reopen the closed Standedge tunnels.
5. GET RID OF PACERS ASAP!

Yes, it is extraordinary that there is no motorway or dual carriageway between Manchester and Sheffield. Of course one could be built quite cheaply over the disused trackbed of the Woodhead route...

 

[Emyr]

You're missing the point. Forget the HS part.

New route = new capacity.

None of your proposals address North-South capacity.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You're missing the point. Forget the HS part.

New route = new capacity.

None of your proposals address North-South capacity.

I think he was referring mostly to the east-west HSR proposals.

The crucial factor that will decide whether incremental upgrade or radically new infrastructure is needed is whether it is at all feasible to upgrade the existing railway to provide faster speeds and more capacity. It may well be possible to fit TASS and have Pendolinos tilting across the TransPennine route to shave off a few minutes but the question is whether that would actually be feasible when there are so many intermediate stations and so few sections where four-tracking would be feasible.

The Northern Hub works will allow most of the TransPennine flows to move to EMUs, which are then faster at accelerating, cheaper to run and double and up have more seats. It won't be easy to do much more beyond this though. Part of the reason that Network Rail are so much in favour of HS2 is that the engineering works to upgrade the existing routes would cost and disrupt so much. If it took years of weekend closures, bustitution and overcrowded diversionary services to upgrade the route to provide tiny amounts of extra capacity then they really may well never bother and just go for the full blown HSR from the very beginning, even if the upfront costs were significantly higher.

Any segregated line with four TSI-compliant through platforms at Manchester and Leeds could allow the same 18x1100 seater per hour capacity as Phase 1. Clearly this would be an obscene amount of capacity, well beyond what is actually needed in the short term, but in this short term they could just run whatever lengths and frequencies of trains that are needed. Alstom sell AGVs in 133m lengths and there's nothing to say that TSI-compliant trains absolutely have to be 200m long, only that the platforms have to be at minimum 400m long. If you finance the high speed line over the very, very long term (well beyond the time predicted for HS2, whose BCR calculations end in 2035) then the economic returns from providing this new link could more than pay for it. Yield management is more than capable of filling up empty seats on trains; charging tiny amounts of money in the beginning to fill up seats will stimulate economic development along the length of the line and thus create the demand that will eventually fill the line completely.

 

[jon0844]

Any new, modern, high speed, high capacity lines get the thumbs up for me. We need to invest in big infrastructure projects. They're good for the economy in a multitude of ways.

Even though I have no doubt we'll drastically improve fuel efficiency and green energy, meaning we might still be able to enjoy the personal space of a car, and still fly planes around the world, I also believe we'll rely far more on public transport in the coming years too.

And that means we need to build more capacity. We can only do so much with extending platforms and upgrading signalling. What's more, we need to build more houses and I think we need to consider more out of town developments, which will need schools, hospitals, and transport links. We can't just keep building in towns and cities where the current stations just won't be able to cope.

So yes to HS3. Yes to HS4. Yes to HS5!..

 

[Muzer]

In principle I agree with HS3. Whether or not the preferred implementation will represent the best way to improve this important link, however, remains to be seen. However, even if it's a poor choice of implementation, it'll still probably be an improvement on the existing line so I'd still probably support it - just not as whole-heartedly as I would otherwise.

I'm partially concerned that the whole HS3 thing has been blown out of proportion - after all, whichever minister it was never used the term HS3, AFAIK. The terms he used IIRC were more like weasel words that sounded more like it might just be an improvement of line speeds on the existing line - cutting off the worst of corners using tunnels, etc. - than a new line deserving of the name HS3. Wouldn't surprise me if the line speed weren't over 125mph, which (in this country) seems to be the threshold - at least, colloquially - of whether we count a line as classic or high-speed (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[NotATrainspott]

In principle I agree with HS3. Whether or not the preferred implementation will represent the best way to improve this important link, however, remains to be seen. However, even if it's a poor choice of implementation, it'll still probably be an improvement on the existing line so I'd still probably support it - just not as whole-heartedly as I would otherwise.

I'm partially concerned that the whole HS3 thing has been blown out of proportion - after all, whichever minister it was never used the term HS3, AFAIK. The terms he used IIRC were more like weasel words that sounded more like it might just be an improvement of line speeds on the existing line - cutting off the worst of corners using tunnels, etc. - than a new line deserving of the name HS3. Wouldn't surprise me if the line speed weren't over 125mph, which (in this country) seems to be the threshold - at least, colloquially - of whether we count a line as classic or high-speed (correct me if I'm wrong).

Network Rail have said that the Dawlish Avoiding Line options C1-C5 each would have the same cost per kilometre as HS2, despite being designed only for 200km/h running. I can't see there being many cheap options available to speed up journey times that much.

 

[HSTEd]

If you are going to build new lines might as well build them to go as fast as possible since it doesn't appreciably reduce capacity.

I would expect Class 395 levels of performance at the least.

 

[meridian2]

Yes I fully endorse HS3, just as I do HS2. Both are the kind of pioneering projects this country needs, but, as is the case with HS2 especially, it highlights the one major blight with building new projects of such magnitude in this country:

They are white elephants until proven canned.

No-one will be happy until HS2 is either scrapped or scrapped.

 

[eps200]

i'd love to see it, makes the 20 miles more case even stronger. If a liverpool spur cant be justified just on HS2 it can certainly be justified if it's used for both HS2 and HS3

 

[Oscar]

Any new, modern, high speed, high capacity lines get the thumbs up for me. We need to invest in big infrastructure projects. They're good for the economy in a multitude of ways.

Even though I have no doubt we'll drastically improve fuel efficiency and green energy, meaning we might still be able to enjoy the personal space of a car, and still fly planes around the world, I also believe we'll rely far more on public transport in the coming years too.

And that means we need to build more capacity. We can only do so much with extending platforms and upgrading signalling. What's more, we need to build more houses and I think we need to consider more out of town developments, which will need schools, hospitals, and transport links. We can't just keep building in towns and cities where the current stations just won't be able to cope.

So yes to HS3. Yes to HS4. Yes to HS5!..

I agree that we need more rail capacity for modal shift away from road and air. However, the question is whether high speed rail is always the best way to achieve this. Rail already has a high modal share on Intercity and commuter flows to and from London. We need to invest across the network and in particular in all urban areas, not just London. Some new fast lines may be necessary to increase capacity and make journey times competitive with the car, but I would hope any plans are bedded in network planning of infrastructure and timetables and come out of an analysis of the best way to spend money to generate modal shift rather than new lines for their own sake.

As to out of town developments, I agree that they need much better facilities, but by their very nature and location they do tend to encourage car use and relatively long-distance commuting.

 

[LesF]

Have you noticed how plans are appearing one by one for works to compensate for the inadequacy of HS2? HS3 is one of them. What is really needed of course is a national rail plan, not a series of disjointed mini-plans where one body designs a high speed railway with disconnected parkway stations and terminal city stations then leaves it to others to contrive the means of getting the passengers to them. Such a national plan already exists and it will provide the benefits of HS2 and HS3- and much more - at less cost. See highspeeduk.com.

 

[Deerfold]

Have you noticed how plans are appearing one by one for works to compensate for the inadequacy of HS2? HS3 is one of them. What is really needed of course is a national rail plan, not a series of disjointed mini-plans where one body designs a high speed railway with disconnected parkway stations and terminal city stations then leaves it to others to contrive the means of getting the passengers to them. Such a national plan already exists and it will provide the benefits of HS2 and HS3- and much more - at less cost. See highspeeduk.com

Hilarious website. Looks interesting until you look into the detail and wonder how we're going to get more trains onto lines which are already full - in my neck of the woods that includes Leeds - Skipton and Leeds - Halifax (never mind fitting any more services into the current Leeds station).

Of course to do this all the trains must be conventionally sized so will carry a fraction of the number of people that HS2 will.

Much as I'd love to see Bradford Crossrail, someone seems to be (finally) building a shopping centre in the way.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Have you noticed how plans are appearing one by one for works to compensate for the inadequacy of HS2? HS3 is one of them. What is really needed of course is a national rail plan, not a series of disjointed mini-plans where one body designs a high speed railway with disconnected parkway stations and terminal city stations then leaves it to others to contrive the means of getting the passengers to them. Such a national plan already exists and it will provide the benefits of HS2 and HS3- and much more - at less cost. See highspeeduk.com.

Yay! It's High Speed UK again! We have discussed HSUK at length in other threads in the HS subforum and the claims made by the people behind it are rather suspect in quite a few areas. Unfortunately their figures don't take into consideration the amount of disruption that would be caused to the classic rail network during its construction and then operation. As the north-south classic rail network is forecast to be at bursting point by the time HS2 opens it means that this disruption cost will be biblical. Aside from Euston and the classic-compatible connections the HS2 proposals have a negligible effect upon the running of the classic railway during construction, which is a very good thing.

 

[LesF]

Deerfold, you get more trains onto "lines which are already full" by 4-tracking 2-track lines where necessary and in the case of Leeds and New St by running most trains through rather than reversing there. If you can't find what you want on highspeeduk.com, please ask HSUK to explain.
HS2 is planned to open with a mixture of captive UIC-C gauge trains that are too big for existing platforms, and UK gauge trains. HSUK would open with UK gauge trains only (earlier than HS2) and get UIC gauge trains later where new platforms are built. HS2L said in 2010 that UK gauge trains would be "eye-wateringly expensive" but David Higgins is now saying there's little difference in cost.
You can get 1100 passengers in a 400m double decker if you really need to, but I've never understood why HS2 want to make them of two x 200m trains coupled. Since they would always run in that formation, why split them so you can't walk through? And you don't get twice as many passengers in by double-decking. A Pendo would have near 1000 seats if it were 400m long.
NotATrainSpott, I haven't followed your debate of HSUK and will catch up. Disruption during the WCRM was mainly due to working on existing tracks. Where new tracks were added offline, the work went smoothly with little disruption. Convenience in construction cannot justify building a permanently disconnected HS2 that blights the network - it's railway apartheid!
If the network really would be "at bursting point" as forecast we can't afford to wait for 10 years of HS2 construction before any of it is of any use, but that's what you will get if you build a segregated railway with no connections between London and WM. With HSUK you build bite size chunks and bring them into use incrementally. Incremental is better than excremental.

 

[HSTEd]

A 400m double deck set would get something like 1350+ seats (and that is with a relatively low density seating layout typical of TGVs).
There was a proposal to do just this and one of the ancillary benefits of that 500+km/h TGV run shows that it is probably feasible.
Additionally we are nowhere near the point where the rolling stock has even been specified - setting it at 200m units is a standard risk reduction exercise.

As to a 400m Pendo... current 11-car ones are 266.2m long and have 590 seats.
That means you can get them up to 16-car before they run over the platform length.
Which means you can have 5 cars at 75 seats each and that brings you up to 965 seats.
All at rather higher seating density.

965 is only 70% of the capacity.


Incremental just means we have numerous connections and disconnections with the classic network and years of work attaching and detaching sections.
This way we build the whole thing at once and attach it all at once with the minimum of disruption.
And it means we build towards a future where we aren't restricted to a toy loading gauge (and I am one of those people who believe HS2 should forget puny GC+ and build to Plate H but I am in the minority there).

4 tracking is also pointless when we can have a 2 track main line for less thanks to moving fewer railway structures and it means we don't drag high speed trains through every random hamlet that grew up around a random halt from the era when trains moved at 30mph.
Surely any sort of service differentiation is 'railway apartheid' - therefore we should use Class 378s for all journeys and all trains should stop at all stations?

 

[pablo]

..........
If the network really would be "at bursting point" as forecast we can't afford to wait for 10 years of HS2 construction before any of it is of any use, but that's what you will get if you build a segregated railway with no connections between London and WM. With HSUK you build bite size chunks and bring them into use incrementally. .....

Or, 16 to 18 years if you wait for Euston's rebuilding.

We are repeating the mistakes of our forebears here. Did the same with the Midland Links motorways and needed the M6 Toll Road, and we end up with the worst of all worlds.
Now, we are repeating the Victorian mismash of a non-integrated system.
You can see the results of piecemeal building by parochial Victorians everywhere you travel, and the unsatisfactory fudges done since to integrate the disparate systems.

Broad gauge for ever! Hooray.

 

[Geezertronic]

Deerfold, you get more trains onto "lines which are already full" by 4-tracking 2-track lines where necessary and in the case of Leeds and New St by running most trains through rather than reversing there. If you can't find what you want on highspeeduk.com, please ask HSUK to explain.

In the case of New Street, the issue will always be getting more trains through I would have thought since the south end cannot be extended past the current 4 tracks which itself is a bottleneck. So whether Cov-New Street (or an increment of that) went to 4 track it would still have the bottleneck at the south end of New Street. No one, even HSUK, has a suitable solution to that without spending half of the entire HS2 budget to tunnel under New Street

The combination of the EUS-BHM and BHM-Scotland VT services should have reduced dwell times for some of the VT services, plus the ATW service terminating at International rather than New Street helps too.

 

[The Decapod]

In principle I support the idea of a complete high-speed network linking our major cities. But I have been sceptical so far on HS2 for several reasons. Firstly, the initial propaganda talked of a 250 mph running, but with a lot of it in tunnels.
250 mph and tunnels are, as far as I know, mutually exclusive concepts! Eurostars are limited to 99mph in the Channel Tunnel, for example.
Also, there's no provision for an intermediate station between London and Birmingham on Phase 1.

I have said on this forum several times that I think HS2 is very vulnerable to cancellation in the future, even part-way through, meaning perhaps only Phase 1 might get built, which would mean it ends up as a white elephant that only saves 15 minutes on the journey between London and Birmingham.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In principle I support the idea of a complete high-speed network linking our major cities. But I have been sceptical so far on HS2 for several reasons. Firstly, the initial propaganda talked of a 250 mph running, but with a lot of it in tunnels.
250 mph and tunnels are, as far as I know, mutually exclusive concepts! Eurostars are limited to 99mph in the Channel Tunnel, for example.
Also, there's no provision for an intermediate station between London and Birmingham on Phase 1.

I have said on this forum several times that I think HS2 is very vulnerable to cancellation in the future, even part-way through, meaning perhaps only Phase 1 might get built, which would mean it ends up as a white elephant that only saves 15 minutes on the journey between London and Birmingham.

High speed is more than possible in tunnels if you have a large enough bore to displace the air. Tunnels on 400km/h sections have two bores of 10m each, larger than the Channel Tunnel and large enough for double stack container freight trains. There are tunnels of this speed and diameter under Crewe and East Midlands airport, and there are 360km/h tunnels under Hoyland and the south east of Barnsley. The bored tunnels on Phase 1 decrease in speed as you get closer to London but all are still at least 320km/h. The only tunnels that are restricted to classic speed are the ones on station spurs and between Euston and Old Oak Common.

Eurostars are limited to that speed because they need to share the Channel Tunnel with freight and vehicle shuttle trains that are far slower. On HS2 all trains will be as fast as any other, meaning that it is possible to run 18tph at 400km/h through tunnels, on the surface or on viaduct. The only sections that limit capacity and speed are the junctions as the maximum speed of a diverging train at a turnout is merely 230km/h.

 

[AM9]

In principle I support the idea of a complete high-speed network linking our major cities. But I have been sceptical so far on HS2 for several reasons. Firstly, the initial propaganda talked of a 250 mph running, but with a lot of it in tunnels.
250 mph and tunnels are, as far as I know, mutually exclusive concepts! Eurostars are limited to 99mph in the Channel Tunnel, for example.
Also, there's no provision for an intermediate station between London and Birmingham on Phase 1.

I have said on this forum several times that I think HS2 is very vulnerable to cancellation in the future, even part-way through, meaning perhaps only Phase 1 might get built, which would mean it ends up as a white elephant that only saves 15 minutes on the journey between London and Birmingham.

Not forgetting its primary purpose of providing additional capacity on the WCML by removing the non-stop traffic. The '.... only saves 15 minutes' tagline is a red herring.

 

[MarkyT]

In the case of New Street, the issue will always be getting more trains through I would have thought since the south end cannot be extended past the current 4 tracks which itself is a bottleneck. . . .
The combination of the EUS-BHM and BHM-Scotland VT services should have reduced dwell times for some of the VT services, plus the ATW service terminating at International rather than New Street helps too.

A quick enquiry on Realtime Trains shows that today between 10:00 and 11:00 51 trains passed Proof House Junction on the approach to Birmingham NS. Between 07:30 and 08:30 the total was 52 trains so this suggests there's no significant difference in train numbers during the morning peak. With 4 tracks available that is 13 trains per hour per track. Notwithstanding the difficulty threading and weaving these trains in and out of their appropriate platforms at the station this does not seem particularly busy compared to some London terminals where 20 trains per hour or more per approach track are accommodated.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A quick enquiry on Realtime Trains shows that today between 10:00 and 11:00 51 trains passed Proof House Junction on the approach to Birmingham NS. Between 07:30 and 08:30 the total was 52 trains so this suggests there's no significant difference in train numbers during the morning peak. With 4 tracks available that is 13 trains per hour per track. Notwithstanding the difficulty threading and weaving these trains in and out of their appropriate platforms at the station this does not seem particularly busy compared to some London terminals where 20 trains per hour or more per approach track are accommodated.

However, these other terminals see a much more consistent flow of traffic. Fenchurch Street, for example, sees only a single class of unit run by a single TOC who then have full use of the route beyond. Since they're commuter trains the turnaround time consists of getting people off the train and maybe doing a little bit of a clean. Euston, King's Cross etc all have to see a much wider variety of train that then have to share track with other services and require far more time at the terminal for all their passengers to disembark and for the trains to be cleaned and stocked up for the return journey. The WCML fast tracks do not have a consistent stopping pattern, as the same tracks are used for Euston-Watford-Milton-Keynes-etc semi-fast services as are used by the Glasgow non-stops to Warrington Bank Quay. Other terminals have far more consistent stopping patterns, meaning that it is possible to fit in those extra trains.

If a Class 357 fails in Fenchurch Street it's possible to steal another unit to replace it, especially when the total journey length is not long enough to cause too many problems for getting trains to depots for maintenance. They're all electric and DOO-operated, so there's no need to worry about fuel and you have only 50% of the staff diagramming needed.

Virgin can't simply swap one train for another because they run 3 different types - Super Voyagers, 9-coach Pendolinos and 11-coach Pendolinos, each with different seating capacities. Swapping units could cause chaos for maintenance purposes as that train could end up on a 5hr30 hour journey to Scotland via Birmingham rather than a shorter run and then to the depot.

East Coast have even more problems because their HSTs to Aberdeen and Inverness use a noticeable percentage of their total fuel capacity to get there, so there may not be other units waiting in King's Cross with enough fuel to actually finish the journey.

 

[MarkyT]

However, these other terminals see a much more consistent flow of traffic. . .

Fully appreciate and agree with all your points. However I'm just surmising it is more likely to be the platform occupancy constraints that limit the total station throughput, not the four track section on its approach that people claim sometimes, and there may be further measures that could be implemented to increase the throughput marginally by combining more services to reduce the number of terminators, as Virgin has done with the through Euston - Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh service pattern.

My figures were slightly wrong too - forgot it is a bank holiday today so a slightly reduced service is working to VAR timings. Peak throughput at Proof House Jn 07:30 to 08:30 is actually 55 trains on a regular weekday WTT, so more like 14 TPH on each line.

 

[UrbanWorld]

In principle I support the idea of a complete high-speed network linking our major cities. But I have been sceptical so far on HS2 for several reasons. Firstly, the initial propaganda talked of a 250 mph running, but with a lot of it in tunnels.
250 mph and tunnels are, as far as I know, mutually exclusive concepts! Eurostars are limited to 99mph in the Channel Tunnel, for example.
Also, there's no provision for an intermediate station between London and Birmingham on Phase 1.

I have said on this forum several times that I think HS2 is very vulnerable to cancellation in the future, even part-way through, meaning perhaps only Phase 1 might get built, which would mean it ends up as a white elephant that only saves 15 minutes on the journey between London and Birmingham.

The obvious Crewe Hub will be on phase 1. I cannot see any high-speed track extending past the Crewe Hub and cancelation after the phase is complete. Trains to Liverpool and Manchester can run into the centres on existing CC tracks from Crewe. The line from Crewe to Manchester is very straight and fast. The WCML spur to Liverpool can have about 10 minutes knocked off with improvements on this stretch. The cost of extending HS2 track to Manchester and Preston is phenomenal for a few minutes gain in time for one city. It is quicker to get to London from Scotland by air than high-speed train, so not worth extending into Scotland. Times from Scotland to Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds are acceptable as they are. They can be improved of course as time goes along.

HS3, Liverpool to Hull, will not be full high-speed rail I am pretty sure of. Just improved with some new track here and there.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The obvious Crewe Hub will be on phase 1.

No, the Phase 1 Hybrid Bill ends at Handsacre and it cannot go any further, as it has passed its second reading in the Commons. Parliament has approved the idea of a high speed railway between London and the West Midlands, all that can now be changed is the exact detail of it.

The line from Handsacre to Crewe will be legislated for in the Phase 2 Hybrid Bill. It will then be possible to open this section around the same time as Phase 1 because it is mostly plain open route that can be built cheaply and easily, unlike other sections.

I cannot see any high-speed track extending past the Crewe Hub and cancelation after the phase is complete.

A misguided belief, for the reasons that I will now explain and have been explained again and again to a variety of people on different forums.

Trains to Liverpool and Manchester can run into the centres on existing CC tracks from Crewe.

Yes, this is possible and this is what is going to happen once the Crewe part of Phase 2 opens in 2027. However, Manchester services will transfer to the captive line when it opens in 2030.

The line from Crewe to Manchester is very straight and fast.

Which is wonderful, but it is not the full extent of the story. After running on the wonderful line from Crewe, the HS2 classic-compatibles must then run via Stockport, where there is very little extra capacity. The three Virgin train services an hour can only be replaced one-for-one by three HS2 classic-compatibles, each of which can then only be a 200m set and thus carry no extra passengers. Therefore no more passenger capacity would exist between Manchester and London, despite the journey time almost halving, which is not going to end well for anyone involved.

The WCML spur to Liverpool can have about 10 minutes knocked off with improvements on this stretch.

There are speed improvements which can be made on the route to Liverpool, yes. These may be feasible because there is capacity on this route for extra services.

The cost of extending HS2 track to Manchester and Preston is phenomenal for a few minutes gain in time for one city.

Which is why the extension to Manchester is justified by the increase in passenger numbers that would overwhelm the existing infrastructure. Preston is served by trains to Scotland, leaving HS2 at Golbourne Junction south of Wigan, and by trains that will leave HS2 at Crewe and serve Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western on the way.

It is quicker to get to London from Scotland by air than high-speed train, so not worth extending into Scotland.

Once there is dedicated high speed track all the way to Scotland, the journey time drops to around 2-and-a-bit hours. If you happen to live in the departure lounge of Edinburgh or Glasgow airport and are planning on visiting the arrivals section of a London airport, then yes, air will be faster than high speed rail for that journey. In the real world, people make journeys from city centre (or thereabouts, accessible by public transport) to city centre (or thereabouts, accessible by public transport) and here, high speed rail to Scotland would be significantly faster than air in the way that current rail from London to Manchester is faster than flying. The only remaining air passengers are there as interchange passengers using London as a hub.

Times from Scotland to Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds are acceptable as they are. They can be improved of course as time goes along.

I don't see three hours as being particularly acceptable as a Scotland-Manchester journey time. If you have some realistic suggestion on how journey times can be improved as time goes along without needing to build a high speed rail line, then I would be more than happy to hear about it.

HS3, Liverpool to Hull, will not be full high-speed rail I am pretty sure of. Just improved with some new track here and there.

To begin with, yes. Inevitably more tracks are going to need to be built and there's not a vast amount of point in building new slow ones.