We're stuck at basic political questions like "should there be efficient trains between London and Manchester?" At least Burnham knows what a Manchester is.
The issue is that its unsexy, not “profitable” and it requires land - not to mention that the timeframes needed will make “the next government” look better.
Our governments are recklessly short sighted, and to be fair, even if they were not, their progress would be undone by the disaffected electorate who can be easily convinced that the sitting government is spaffing money up the wall.
And preferably at prices lower than what an equivalent journey would cost by airplane.
This excludes corruption based inefficiencies like the PPE scandal.
Basically the train never stops- it just reorganizes.
(obviously this is something that, even if you could get it to work for large 100mph trains, is going to be horrifically vulnerable to the first accident)