If you could choose where new high speed line would be, where would they go? My idea was for a line from london to the west country, ending in plymouth with a branch into south wales.
East of England line from London via Stansted & Cambridge to join ECML north of Peterborough & possible later extension to join HS2 near Sheffield/Leeds. HS1 Interchange at Stratford ?
With a spur towards Norwich (prob from Stansted to join the existing Liv St route towards Ipswich or from Cambridge on upgraded existing route via Thetford).
It would take most non-stop Cambridge traffic off the ECML making room at Welwyn for more local (Thameslink) services & eliminates need to widen the viaduct/tunnels.
Similarly it increases capacity on WAML.
Would be more direct for London-leeds/north East than going via Birmingham.
Please see some of my posts in my version of this thread
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Incidentally, any routes I proposed (starting with London-Sheffield) would be mixed-traffic railways integrated with the current system rather than something separate and new. Essentially, new main lines with a speed limit of 200 mph, but still carrying Voyagers on some services. That's one reason why there would be three going north, with a maximum of 6 tph for high speed work, you would need them. They would also be quadrupled for some sections, with stopping passenger trains and even freight on the slow lines. Fares and ticketing would be fully-integrated with the current system, with no supplimentaries.
The Western line of course already has a purpose built terminal at Waterloo unless it goes into a tunnel under London to connect with HS1 & 2 in a giant interchange complex at Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras.
If I had been drinking tea at that point, it would have ended up all over my keyboard. That is just impossible on so many levels :PAnother weird one would be from say, Newcastle to Olso (Norway) allowing for trains from Russia to be able to come via scandanavia rater than western Europe.
While I'd love to cover the country with a super-network of high-speed lines, it has all got to be paid for, so......
A line into Scotland will go no further than Glasgow & Edinburgh. Aberdeen cannot be justified, an extra 130+ miles for a city with a population less than Coventry, or Stoke is unaffordable. There can also only be one route to Scotland, which I suggest would be up the West coast as that would allow journeys to Manchester & Birmingham, so that's my first line - London - Birmingham - Manchester - Glasgow / Edinburgh.
Second would be London - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle.
Third London - Bristol - Cardiff. Similar to the Aberdeen economics I can't see a branch to Plymouth being affordable.
Bearing in mind that capacity is one of the major drivers that make these lines economically justifiable, I can't see any routes other than those three that I could justify the tax bill for.
Brighton - Glasgow Airport - London
You seem to have an absurd number of reversals in there :P.Does give me an idea for a new XC service, partly using my HSGW route.
Brighton - Three Bridges - Gatwick Airport - Redhill - Guildford - Woking - Staines - Heathrow Terminal 5 - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington Spa - Coventry - Birmingham International - Birmingham New Street - Wolverhampton High Level - Stafford - Stoke-on-Trent - Macclesfield - Stockport - Manchester Airport - Manchester Piccadilly - Preston - Lancaster - Oxenholme - Penrith - Carlisle - Prestwick Airport - Glasgow Airport - Glasgow Central
I might have skipped a few, but is that enough airports for you?
It's fairly common in France.For 'extensions' such as this, I'd look at upgrading the existing lines to 125 mph, definitely electrifying them and considering tilt. We all know that 125 is just about the highest practical speed for a mixed-traffic railway. Some sections might cause problems, though. The Fife Coast and Dawlish Sea Wall are the worst, being slow and twisty as well as prone to extreme weather. Bypass lines would be the ideal solution, again with a top speed of 125, but that might be unaffordable (despite the GWR wanting to build a Dawlish bypass in the 1930s).
Having seen a TGV passing through the old Lyon-Geneva Railway station at La Plaine, I'm sure I can imagine a Classic Compatible stopping at Montrose.
You seem to have an absurd number of reversals in there :P.
It's fairly common in France.
I've had a TGV pass at speed at Nuit-St-George, then the all-stations train (which we were waiting for), turn up on the same track some minutes later.
The issue is that when things go wrong, it tends to all stack up very quickly.