Is high-speed (225mph) rail dead in the UK?

[redthegraduate]

Short version:

Will we see another HS2-speed line in the UK?

Longer version:

Hello! I’m a long-time listener, first-time caller, as they say. I grew up in London in the ‘80s and ‘90s, so I’m just old enough to feel nostalgic for the liveries of Network SouthEast and the InterCity swallow, clacking departure boards, paper tickets, and the old stations at London Bridge and Blackfriars. Of course I was a kid then: I never had to rely on BR to commute. I am now a middle-aged dad with the requisite interest in trains and a northern father in law who is always ready to rant about Beeching.

Anyhoo, I share what seems to be the consensus opinion on HS2 – that it’s been horribly mismanaged, but given where we are it makes sense to extend to Euston, finish regenerating the area, build HS2 Lite as soon as possible and drop the HS2 brand.

But I’m curious: do you think that the 'Aston to Acton Euston shuttle' will be the UK’s only foray into crazy-fast rail? Given the expense, I can see the ‘Lite’ approach being the model going forward, both now and for any future lines. We’re a small country. But I could be wrong.

 

[Sorcerer]

I wouldn't strictly say that it's dead, but without serious reforms in how the UK manages infrastructure projects it will be hard to make a case for more high-speed rail even where we need it. Much as I would've loved HS2 to be done in full with the Manchester and Leeds branches I would still feel a lot better knowing they wouldn't be so horribly mismanaged. The 'HS2 Lite' idea might be cheaper but in the long-term won't actually be that much better value for money compared to normal HS2. Slab tracks for example might be more expensive than ballast and sleepers but it's much more future-proofed, as is building a track to 360km/h (225mph) specification (which is common practice elsewhere).

 

[HSTEd]

Given the massive political and financial cost that HS2 has lumbered every government involved with, I doubt anyone will take the risk of a high speed rail project again.

Perhaps the people behind HS1 might be able to convince the government to give them another chance, but anyone without that track record? Not a chance.

 

[Nottingham59]

Welcome to the forum.

I strongly believe that attitudes will all change when HS2 starts running. Even the overture service between Old Oak Common and Curzon Street will have an impact, especially when the convenience of OOC for access to Heathrow and to Canary Wharf becomes apparent - at least for residents of Birmingham and Solihull.

Then think about what happens when HS2 phase one opens with trains past Handsacre. Even if Euston is not operational by that time, HS2 will become the fastest routing north for many destinations in the Midlands and the Northwest. Especially as expresses on the WCML will get slower and less frequent, with more stopping at places like Milton Keynes and being squeezed out by the extremely limited capacity at Colwich Junction (beyond Handsacre where HS2 phase merges onto the WCML).

Now take the average backbench MP. They only ever take trains to return home to their consituencies on Thursday nights; back to London on Sundays or early(ish) on Monday mornings, or off to Heathrow for genuine business trips abroad (ministers) and fact-finding jollies to the Caribbean (back benchers).

Many such MPs for the West Midlands, north Wales, Liverpool and Manchester, and the rest of the north west, will end up using HS2 fairly regularly. They will be confronted by the stark deficiencies in phase one - especialy the snail's pace after Handsacre; the limited number of trains per hour that will be available; the lack of Euston. (Normal people will go via Old Oak Common from Westminster. To Euston today is 22 minutes by tube; to Acton Mainline is 33, which will get faster when the Elizabeth Line upgrades to OOC. But MPs will take taxis.)

To illustrate, two of the eleven members of the Transport Select Committe will use HS2 regularly (Heywood and Middleton, Birmingham Northfield) and three others are likely to use it at least occasionally (Derby North, Derby South, Edinburgh SW). Other MPs will have similar percentages. Similarly for BBC News journalists heading off to Salford; business types from Manchester; influencers and pundits from many places. That's a huge constituency for change. The pressure to bypass Colwich; to finish Euston; to extend HS2 to at least Manchester; and have through trains to the East Midlands will be very great. And every extension makes the next one easier to justify.

So it seems likely to me that within five years of HS2 starting operations, we will have a decision to extend it. With trains running within ten. Whether they're running at 225 mph I couldn't say, but the alignment has been chosen and that's good for 250 mph running (400 kph). So the eventually the tracks will be upgraded to 225 mph, even if they're not done to that specification at first.

 

[A S Leib]

To illustrate, two of the eleven members of the Transport Select Committe will use HS2 regularly (Heywood and Middleton, Birmingham Northfield) and three others are likely to use it at least occasionally (Derby North, Derby South, Edinburgh SW).

Not that it affects the overall point, but as I think OOC – Birmingham, let alone anything else, will open in the last three years of the next parliament, there's a good chance that those MPs at the very least won't be in the transport committee by then.

 

[SynthD]

Could you define “another HS2”? The full Y network, with services to Liverpool, Scotland and York, is still HS2. Rebranding is rearranging bookshelves. Like with Crossrail to Reading, I wonder if Chester or North Wales are a likely further phase.

Unconnected from that, I don’t see enough demand or reason for the proposals I’ve seen on this forum. Doubling north of Preston or Northallerton, for the benefit of HS2 and metro services, could be branded as HS2 works at a stretch.

 

[Nottingham59]

Not that it affects the overall point, but as I think OOC – Birmingham, let alone anything else, will open in the last three years of the next parliament, there's a good chance that those MPs at the very least won't be in the transport committee by then.

Sure, but perhaps one in six* of constituencies will have HS2 as the fastest route from central London on a Thursday evening. So whichever party is in power will have that proportion of MPs who will use it at least occasionally.


* I haven't counted them, but just looking at the Cartogram of the 2024 election results on the BBC here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/results I would estimate that English constituencies west of the pennines and north of Nuneaton, Warwick and Shrewsbury occupy at least one sixth of the total.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you define “another HS2”? The full Y network, with services to Liverpool, Scotland and York, is still HS2. Rebranding is rearranging bookshelves. Like with Crossrail to Reading, I wonder if Chester or North Wales are a likely further phase.

Unconnected from that, I don’t see enough demand or reason for the proposals I’ve seen on this forum. Doubling north of Preston or Northallerton, for the benefit of HS2 and metro services, could be branded as HS2 works at a stretch.

"HS3" would logically run to the Westcountry and Bristol/South Wales. There isn't really a lot of scope for any more high speed rail to be honest aside from extending the full HS2 Y all the way to Scotland.

 

[Nottingham59]

"HS3" would logically run to the Westcountry and Bristol/South Wales. There isn't really a lot of scope for any more high speed rail to be honest aside from extending the full HS2 Y all the way to Scotland.

The bigger need will be another line between London and the Midlands. Because HS2 south of Interchange will be full within a few years, and to mitigate all the single points of failure inherent with the Y network design.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because HS2 south of Interchange will be full within a few years

Will it? I suspect we will start to see the limit to demand when we're actually running three 400m trains on HS2 *plus* two Pendolinos (265m) and an 807 (about 180m) and two 12-car 350 formations (240m each) on the WCML and the same* on Chiltern. There's only so much demand for going to Birmingham.

When you consider that the WCML, MML and ECML aren't going anywhere, I'm not sure if the full Y network was built it would end up filling up any time soon.

* Well, we can hope, can't we? But even if they're just 6-car Mk5 formations, the total is still pretty big.

 

[Palmerston]

I think you can view HS2 not just as a high speed line, but an expensive new bit of rail infrastructure. In recent history I would put HS1, Crossrail and the Channel Tunnel in this box too. The latter three were all moaned about, but all seem fairly popular now. For the reasons above, I can see HS2 getting popular as well.

The 'big projects' for future might be Crossrail 2, HS to Crewe, HS to Manchester, HS East to Leeds, Northern Powerhouse rail (if this means a new line from Liverpool to Hull, or something similar) and maybe new Bradford station. Feel free to mention things I've missed.

Appreciate there's some crossover between a few of the things above but I think most might happen, with HS to Crewe the favourite to be next, imo.

 

[Discuss223]

It amazes me that they are upgrading the signalling on the ECML but won't be installing (as far as I know) in-cab signalling for 140mph running. I don't know about the Hitachi variants but I do know the Mallard 225s are designed to operate at 140. The Great Western Mainline is also straight for many stretches and has ATP in place too, so would be an ideal candidate to be the first line to have increased speeds. West Coast is just too bendy and the Midland is too.

 

[Nottingham59]

Will it? I suspect we will start to see the limit to demand when we're actually running three 400m trains on HS2 *plus* two Pendolinos (265m) and an 807 (about 180m) and two 12-car 350 formations (240m each) on the WCML and the same* on Chiltern. There's only so much demand for going to Birmingham.

When you consider that the WCML, MML and ECML aren't going anywhere, I'm not sure if the full Y network was built it would end up filling up any time soon.

* Well, we can hope, can't we? But even if they're just 6-car Mk5 formations, the total is still pretty big.

I was thinking about the time when HS2 gets all the way to Manchester; Edinburgh and Glasgow are less than four hours from London via Carlisle; and at least Derby and Sheffield are served by HS2 services, if not Leeds.

I'd expect to see demand for 4tph to Birmingham and 4tph to Manchester; 1tph to Glasgow; 2tph to Edinburgh; 2tph to Liverpool; 1tph to an electrified Chester; 2tph to Derby and Sheffield; 1tph to Warrington and Preston. That's HS2 full, even without the eastern arm of the Y.

EDIT
Looking to the future, I'd propose that the standard speeds on GB mainlines should be:

• 110 mph, as this seems to be the fastest that trains can go without aerodynamic effects precluding end connections, as exemplified by 350s on the WCML.
• 155 mph (250kph). With ETCS giving in-cab signalling, there is no obvious reason to keep 125mph as a standard. It's not sufficiently different from 110mph to justify the complications of mixing linespeeds on a major railway. Many new trains in Europe are being designed for 250 kph running. I believe there are some technical standards in Europe which require additional costs for trains faster than 250 kph, but I don't know what these are.
• 225 mph (360 kph), which is the standard adopted by HS2. Their aspiration of 400 kph running seems to be impractical at the current state of technology, but I agree with their decision to build the line with a minimum curvature of 8250m which is compatible with 400 kph speeds. I don't know if the HS2 standard of 125 mph (200kph) speed limits for turnouts is a fundament constraint or not.

Looking at specific lines, I'd propose:

• Extensions to HS2 should be at the current standard (360 kph with scope for 400 kph). I'd choose a route to Manchester that allowed 400kph running right up to the edge of the conurbation, rather than the ridiculour S-bend at 125 mph around Tatton Park that is in the current plans.
• 155mph would be a good aspiration for the relatively straight East Coast and the Great Western routes, rather than 140mph.
• Any new line from Liverpool to Leeds should be at 110 mph. Distances between stations are not far enough to justify a high speed line, and it will be an intensively used commuter railway, rather than a long-distance route. Beyond Leeds, 155mph would be a good choice to join the ECML.
• Any new passing loops on the WCML north of Preston should be straight enough for 155 mph running, even though trains are likely to be limited to 110/125 mph for the lifetime of current HS2 stock.

Apart from the above, I don't see

 

[Matt P]

"HS3" would logically run to the Westcountry and Bristol/South Wales. There isn't really a lot of scope for any more high speed rail to be honest aside from extending the full HS2 Y all the way to Scotland.

I'd be surprised if there are any proposals for a HS line as long as HS2 was originally planned. However I think smaller projects consisting of some higher speed cut offs to receive bottlenecks may be politically acceptable, particularly if HS2 delivers clear benefits when it opens. In my opinion attention should be given to projects that relive the ECML. Whether this alone could also relive the MML as well I don't know.

One of the options considered as part of the various Strategic Alternatives to HS2 was a new section of line between Alexandra Palace and Biggleswade, which would help relive the southern section of the ECML. This would probably have to be considered in conjunction with other projects such as four tracking all the way to Peterborough or even dusting off elements of Virgin's 2002 ECML franchise bid proposals. Calling a projects HS3 is also likely to attract negative media and political attention. So breaking them up into bitesize chunks (e.g. ECML South Capacity Relief Line) and delivering them separately may also need to be considered.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't see any case really existing for further high speed construction unless it allows a reduction in spending on conventional rail.

Given the extremely poor financial state of the railway, the Treasury is probably not going to be willing to spend tens of billions to then have to pay more subsidies forever.

If you can make a case for a high speed line that allows major rationalisation of existing infrastructure, you might get somewhere.
But duplicating main lines in a way that requires the original to remain fully operational is not going to get you anywhere politically.

 

[A0]

Many such MPs for the West Midlands, north Wales, Liverpool and Manchester, and the rest of the north west, will end up using HS2 fairly regularly. They will be confronted by the stark deficiencies in phase one - especialy the snail's pace after Handsacre; the limited number of trains per hour that will be available; the lack of Euston. (Normal people will go via Old Oak Common from Westminster. To Euston today is 22 minutes by tube; to Acton Mainline is 33, which will get faster when the Elizabeth Line upgrades to OOC. But MPs will take taxis.)

Except they aren't particularly slow - take Liverpool, from Rugeley TV to Lime Street is 70 miles, current Avanti services cover than in an hour with stops at Runcorn and Crewe, so averaging 70mph - hardly "snail's pace" given that's the average and the 2 stops add about 10 minutes as a penalty for slowing, dwell time and acceleration after the stop. Remove the 10 minute penalty of 2 stops and the *average* speed rises to around 85mph.

 

[Meerkat]

In recent history I would put HS1, Crossrail and the Channel Tunnel in this box too. The latter three were all moaned about, but all seem fairly popular now. For the reasons above, I can see HS2 getting popular as well.

They are popular but that‘s largely due to the controversy having gone - the money has been spent.
But you suggest building Crossrail 2 or another channel crossing and the controversy about overspending will return, the same controversy that is killing HS2.
HS only hope is to be more like MML electrification - incremental chunks with ‘small’ budgets. Getting to Euston, getting to Crewe, Liverpool - Manchester, Crewe to that line, HS2 to East Midlands Parkway etc etc.
but it’s going to take decades

 

[Nottingham59]

HS only hope is to be more like MML electrification - incremental chunks with ‘small’ budgets. Getting to Euston, getting to Crewe, Liverpool - Manchester, Crewe to that line, HS2 to East Midlands Parkway etc etc.
but it’s going to take decades

That's how DfT build new motorways. Like the "A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet" and "A417 Missing Link"

 

[class26]

That's how DfT build new motorways. Like the "A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet" and "A417 Missing Link"

and how the M42 around Brum was built

 

[Mgameing123]

Given the massive political and financial cost that HS2 has lumbered every government involved with, I doubt anyone will take the risk of a high speed rail project again.

Perhaps the people behind HS1 might be able to convince the government to give them another chance, but anyone without that track record? Not a chance.

Wait until HS2 has opened. Then the government wi realize how good of an investment it was.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It amazes me that they are upgrading the signalling on the ECML but won't be installing (as far as I know) in-cab signalling for 140mph running. I don't know about the Hitachi variants but I do know the Mallard 225s are designed to operate at 140. The Great Western Mainline is also straight for many stretches and has ATP in place too, so would be an ideal candidate to be the first line to have increased speeds. West Coast is just too bendy and the Midland is too.

The ECML south of Doncaster will get ETCS in-cab signalling, good for higher speeds than the current 125mph.
It's all the other factors that would prevent higher speeds (track quality, OHLE, level crossings etc), with a major physical upgrade being required.
IC225s will be dead before higher speeds are available.

The electrified GWML east of the Cotswold tunnels is probably closer to being 140mph-ready, but the plan to install ETCS is delayed indefinitely.
There's also the view that 140mph running is unnecessary on that route with such frequent station stops.

HS1 and HS2 are/will be proper high speed lines, so hardly "dead".
NPR won't have much need for very high speeds, again because of frequent stops and other obstacles.

 

[Palmerston]

There's also the view that 140mph running is unnecessary on that route with such frequent station stops.

HS1 and HS2 are/will be proper high speed lines, so hardly "dead".
NPR won't have much need for very high speeds, again because of frequent stops and other obstacles.

If HS2 East got built, is there a practical cap on top speeds? If you assume a stop in Birmingham, either Interchange or Curzon St, then East Mids*, Sheffield and Leeds, how much time do you save much from 200 mph vs 180 or 160?

* East Midlands Interchange never seemed a perfect solution to me. Going through Derby, as it's largely en route, seems better on a map, but I could be making a silly comment. If you did go via Derby, could increase the MML trains to Nottingham to 3/4 an hour.

 

[HSTEd]

Wait until HS2 has opened. Then the government wi realize how good of an investment it was.

Will they?

The HS2 we are getting, even if Euston is eventually rebuilt to support it, will be a pale shadow of the scheme that was envisaged.

HS2 was not really designed to function well with only Phase 1, its one of the major issues with the scheme.
I don't think it will be able to demonstrate enough potential to justify the enormous expense of revisiting any later phases. Even Phase 2A was up to £7bn according to HS2 before cancellation, and another decade of cost growth will probably drive that higher.

This is all made worse by HS2 Ltd clinging doggedly to the original rolling stock order despite the wildly changed circumstances, raising all sorts of train length problems.
I think HS2 can be somewhat salvaged, but only by admitting that the original dream is gone.

 

[Meerkat]

East Midlands Interchange never seemed a perfect solution to me. Going through Derby, as it's largely en route, seems better on a map, but I could be making a silly comment. If you did go via Derby, could increase the MML trains to Nottingham to 3/4 an hour.

East Midlands Parkway is a parkway for a start. And then the trains can go up the Erewash Valley to Sheffield, rather than round via Derby.

 

[mike57]

Wait until HS2 has opened. Then the government wi realize how good of an investment it was.

Unfortunately I dont think this will be the case, the overspend and reduction in scope will mean that it will be a fairly low key event as the cost of the current scope is in the £60-70 billion range. Thats about £1000 for every man, woman and child in the UK and would more than compensate for the recent tax rises. I personally believe the politicians will keep their distance.

Had the original scope ("Y" route) been delivered, at something close to original cost allowing for inflation then I think a different view might prevail.

There are sections of both the ECML and GWML that could support higher than 125mph speeds, but I think any available money would be better spent dealing with the pinch points and slow sections and/or further electrification in the case of the GWML.

 

[Nottingham59]

Unfortunately I dont think this will be the case, the overspend and reduction in scope will mean that it will be a fairly low key event as the cost of the current scope is in the £60-70 billion range. Thats about £1000 for every man, woman and child in the UK and would more than compensate for the recent tax rises. I personally believe the politicians will keep their distance.

It's new and shiny. The politicians won't be able to resist the photo opportunity.

Had the original scope ("Y" route) been delivered, at something close to original cost allowing for inflation then I think a different view might prevail.

Agreed. That would have been a better outcome, but we are where we are. The

There are sections of both the ECML and GWML that could support higher than 125mph speeds, but I think any available money would be better spent dealing with the pinch points and slow sections and/or further electrification in the case of the GWML.

Definitely. We need investment in capacity into and out of the biggest cities; and between the major population centres rather than speed. (Particularly West Midlands - North West; West/East Midlands - Leeds; Liverpool - Leeds)

It's a shame that phase 2 of HS2 would have provided just that capacity, and high speeds too.

 

[Meerkat]

Thats about £1000 for every man, woman and child in the UK and would more than compensate for the recent tax rises.

a one off tax rebate, vs paying for something that should generate lots of cash.
Apples and oranges

 

[Nottingham59]

something that should generate lots of cash.

It won't generate lots of cash, sadly.

Ticket sales on HS2 itself will exceed cash expenditure, certainly, but ticket revenue on the southern WCML will collapse after HS2 opens but the corresponding expenditure is mostly fixed.

 

[SynthD]

Collapse? Milton Keynes and other WCML only destinations will mean income won’t fall that sharply. This is also true for future high speed, such as to Goldborne, Manchester and York.

 

[stevieinselby]

The ECML south of Doncaster will get ETCS in-cab signalling, good for higher speeds than the current 125mph.

This might be a silly question, but is in-cab signalling compatible with lineside signalling?
ie, if the ECML was upgraded to in-cab signalling, would that mean that all trains using those lines would also have to be upgraded ... or could it be only those planned to run at >125mph with other trains still running as now using the existing signalling?