Having the ability to run trains at that higher top speed gives flexibility for service patterns, and makes the line more useful. I'm not sure the design is significantly different from other projects either - eg apparently the minimum turn radius used on the highest design speed sections is the same as France is using for their newer LGV routes, 7.2km.2
No one is talking about out of date. Just we didn't have to beat the rest of Europe here. It would have been fine had we matched the rest of Europe.
Sure if the design speed on some sections was lower then you could wiggle the route around more to avoid the odd tree, but I don't think it's been shown that that would actually save a significant amount of money or reduce local opposition. The route is already pretty good at avoiding settlements and environmental impacts - NIMBYs would protest it however wiggly you made the route.
Last edited: