...if they could fly the regular track at their regular cruise, would it not have cut flight time..
As others have said, Concorde cruise-climbed at levels well above the normal NATS tracks.
Even if the track system had existed up to FL600, I strongly suspect that ATC (Shanwick and Gander) would not have been amused at trying to maintain (procedural) separation (without radar coverage) between an aircraft flying well over twice as fast as any other aircraft on the tracks as well as one that was constantly changing its altitude, both up and down.
The sheer amount of airspace that ATC would have had to "block-off" just to allow one Concorde to cross would have played havoc with the NAT
system and would have been unworkable.
It also happens quite frequently that subsonic aircraft are not cleared at their requested cruise Mach number or FL
, due to traffic constraints, both of which would have been unacceptable to Concorde.
However, if we had ever been allowed to go supersonic in the climb out of LHR
, booming England, Wales and Ireland in the process, and cleared to route from LHR
direct to JFK
, decelerating very late in the descent and booming New York, New Jersey and possibly Connecticut as well, then, Yes, it would have cut the flight time and been a lot quicker!
...The Concorde tracks were a little longer and usually to the south of the regular, subsonic tracks, which of course move north and south depending on winds. I believe the Concorde tracks were fixed...
The tracks were shown on an Aerad chart BA
used, entitled CONCORDE EN
ROUTE HIGH ALTITUDE, which detailed the four fixed NA
tracks, although I suspect that chart may not be available now!
* SM was the Westbound SSC NA track.
* SN was the Eastbound SSC NA track.
* SO was a spare track, to the South of the other two, usable in either direction, which was available in case of a traffic conflict between AF and BA on the other two tracks.
* SP was the SSC NA track down to the Caribbean, used by BA on the LHR-BGI service.
Best Regards to both