We've already got a high speed link to England... Two in fact. They've called the A1 and the A74(M).

Once you're in England, you then use either the M6/A34/M27 or the M1/M25/M3/M27 high speed links to get to the south coast.

...and you can take what you want with you, and you can smoke, and you've got the car there when you get there.

You might strugle to get to London in 2 hours 45 minutes if you take the A1 and I don't know if I'd want my car when I got there. Think I'll stay at home.

They should build the rail link, and close all the un-necessary road links south to save costs.
That's what they did in the 1960's with the railways.

#2:

You're right. It would take longer, but once you add the waiting around time and the hassle factor the car is far preferable.

A no bad way to keep the economy afloat while HBOS and RBS are being taken apart. Better value for money than spending it on failed Bankers. When you look it it on a 50-75 year timescale the benefits outweight the cost by 50-100 times. Aye go for it Gordo build a big stonking brand new train set from London to Edinburgh, but make sure it goes to both of the Airports as well Heathrow and Turnhouse. Its only possible because of the Union and us having oor boys in Downing Street

The biggest issue with this project has to be where it would run when it gets into cities. They couldn't just rip up existing tracks because it would mean halting services for 5+ years.

And if they chose to build beside the existing railway or built a new one altogether, you'd have to buy up all homes and property within about 30 metres of the route or tunnel underneath. (That would make trams work look like a minor irritant).

You'd also have to build new stations because the existing ones are at capacity.

Definitely sounds like more than 5 years work to me.

Big high wa’ to protect Scotland wid be a better idea - ance the water level starts risin’ and the England populus have nae food - they’ll be high speed linkin’ it up here !

Great, will that be the same coming home,lovely.

#3 why would Scotland need a high speed link to Scotland?

If this was France or Germany, or any other country for that metter, it could be done in 5 years. But this being Britain,, 5 years to appoint consultants to see if it is feasible, 10 years arguing about money and then another 30 years building it bit by bit.

Whit a nonsense. The high speed link is already here - it's telecomms y'ken. And unless you want to go there on holiday, why travel?

What's the fascination with speed?

Is it to encourage folks to travel by train?

Wouldn't a sensible pricing structure achieve that better? And some decent rolling stock? And some decent facilities at stations? And reasonably priced quality food served on trains? And adherence to timetables?

The rail network is a shambolic disgrace and we're supposed to be happy to spend another £31 billion on a shiny new train set, just to shave an hour off journey times, and with a ticket price that would prevent most of us being able to afford it?

Madness. Utter madness.

Just improve the network. And if speed is really so important, then we can indulge the illusion by flying.

Better still. Why not plead with the French to take over the running of our railways? Or the Spanish?

And, how about moving freight back onto the rail network, compulsorily? Wouldn't that be of real environmental benefit?

Jasbar - huge chunks of British railways are run by foreign companies. The biggest freight group (EWS) is owned by what was Deutsche Bundesbahn. I think the Dutch run, or expect to run, much of the London SE commuter services.

Foo,

I don't know what kind of car you're driving that will make it from Edinburgh to London in 5 hours! Maybe you should consider joining the Top Gear team if you can do that! You could maybe advise Clarkson on his next race against Hammond and May. A more normal time is about 7-8 hours.

To me, that's not a particularly long stint. If you feel beholden to motorway rip-off stations then you need to think ahead a bit. There are plenty of decent garages/pubs/cafes/restaurants within a few minutes of any motorway junction. Either that, or take a packed lunch. Plan your trip a bit and you can take advantage of them.

OK, you've got me on the bottle of wine front but when I get where I'm going, you can bank on me drinking several pints of real ale!

Given the choice (which I do not always have) I would rather drive to any destination in mainland Europe than get there by any other means. If going further afield then a ship would be the transport of choice.

#14, half the point of high-speed rail is to provide the capacity and punctuality you (rightly) crave. There is not enough capacity on existing tracks for many more trains (and certainly not faster ones, since they'd crash into the slow ones). New infrastructure is required, and it might as well be high-speed, releasing existing lines for commuter and freight traffic. It'll also reduce the need to fly, hence carbon emissions.

1) GET REAL. Maximum LEGAL speed on any British road is 70mph. That on high speed rail is more than DOUBLE this at 150+!!
14) How about the Swiss! WOW!! What a rail network - to virtually every nook and cranny of every strath and valley (and TIMETABLED connecting buses to anywhere beyond)!!!

Of course, if the english government had ever been genuinely serious about the concept of 'britain', such high speed links from northern Scotland to the South of England would have happened years ago. The reality is, that to english government ministers, Scotland starts and ends at Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Gordon Brown tells people he is from 'North Britain', and not Scotland.

In an independent Scotland with an oil fund, Scotland could invest in real high speed modern rail networks to ALL parts of Scotland. The benefits would be huge, opening up many new business opportunities in central Scotland and the highlands.

#12 If this was France or Germany it would not take 5 years to build because we'd have been using it already for 20 years.
Access to cities is not that difficult for example here in Edinburgh there used to be 4 tracks between Portobello and Waverley but currently only 2 so going back to 4 would help use of the line through Brunstane and the old Lothian lines to Monktonhall for slow trains would leave the existing main line for expresses. After there new routes could follow the A1 route and probably keep inside their fence line as far as Torness, use the existing line to Ayton and then follow the A1 round Berwick to rejoin the railway near Beal, increase to 4 tracks towards Morpeth and bypass the bad curve there and join the main line again into Newcastle again by putting back tracks which have ben taken out. I recedntly came from Newcastle to Edinburgh [in a BR diesel HST] in 79 minutes so I reckon an hour flat would be achievable. South of Newcastle a similar combination of route but going via Leeds and Sheffield could easily see London reached in under 3 hours while also serving major intermediate centres. Add in Heathrow and Turnhouse, Glasgow and the Channel tunnel and this would be even more profitable than any TGV line

#15 a lot of commuter trains in London are also run from Aberdeen by First, they also do the lines to the South West and Wales, mind you they also do Greyhound buses in the USA.
Stagecoach runs the electric troley buses in Wellington New Zealand and a bus company runs The Flying Scotsman.
I've got a bike maybe I'll get BA someday

ha ha ha what kind of waccy baccy is he smoking, the present rail service is a joke, national express quoted almost 700 quid for 3 return fares to london, no wonder people fly, and any idea of HST is pie in the sky

#22, you can take the train to LDN much cheaper than that