HS2 Reset: Evidence to Transport Committee - 9 July 2025 "Total overspend on high-speed rail could be as much as 100%"

[HSTEd]

A reason speed as well as capacity was factored into the specification was future aspirations to reach Scotland, and then 225mph (rather than 140mph) starts to make a huge difference.

225mph still won't make much difference against 186mph over the short distances in the UK though.

Even 400 miles non-stop it only saves 20 minutes

And Scotland traffic is not where the passengers are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

Plus, to ease the east coast mainline, it still needed to be faster via the hs2 route. Speed also helps relieve overcrowding on the cross country routes, where it could have been 90mins quicker for some routes via a change at OOC, rather than take the direct train.

It only has to match or just beat the existing route and then timetabling can do the rest.
It doesn't need to crush it, indeed if other factors can be made more attractive it could even be somewhat slower than the fastest trains today.

 

[FMerrymon]

The questions is whether all of most of such effects could have been achieved much more cheaply by pursuing other projects. For example, other options existed for the redevelopment of OOC (lots happening across London!) and Birmingham (eg a new intercity station at Curzon st). Ditto those “potential” new towns. And corporate moves are displacement, not an overall benefit.

Youre building a new railway to create capacity on the network and to prevent the midlands and Northern cities from suffucating their growth due to insufficient connectivity due to lack of capacity. The developments and value in change of land use is just a happy benefit. Old oak will be one of the best connected places in the UK, will be highly desirable.

Same with crossrail. The need was capacity on the underground system, but the happy benefit is developments along its route. Just look at Southall.

 

[NCT]

And Scotland traffic is not where the passengers are.

It is. They are currently in the sky.

 

[slowroad]

Youre building a new railway to create capacity on the network and to prevent the midlands and Northern cities from suffucating their growth due to insufficient connectivity due to lack of capacity. The developments and value in change of land use is just a happy benefit. Old oak will be one of the best connected places in the UK, will be highly desirable.

Same with crossrail. The need was capacity on the underground system, but the happy benefit is developments along its route. Just look at Southall.

The Northern cities need better metros/trams/urban rail. Other than that rail is marginal; roads dominate overwhelmingly for commuting and freight. If anything is suffocating growth it is the failure to invest in the road network in the way other developed countries have.

 

[NCT]

The Northern cities need better metros/trams/urban rail. Other than that rail is marginal; roads dominate overwhelmingly for commuting and freight. If anything is suffocating growth it is the failure to invest in the road network in the way other developed countries have.

Nonsense. Northern cities' over-reliance on road is what's choking their growth.

 

[weeklycommuter]

A reason speed as well as capacity was factored into the specification was future aspirations to reach Scotland, and then 225mph (rather than 140mph) starts to make a huge difference.

Clearly the new HS2 railway will only go from London to Birmingham and Crewe (or Handsacre Junction) and the West Coast Mainline will be used for the rest of the route to Scotland. Old Oak Common to Birmingham Interchange is about 150km. Old Oak Common to Crewe is about 250km.

I assume the speed that the trains will run at on the new HS2 railway is not currently decided. This was not mentioned at the Transport Committee session. However reducing the travel time has to be balanced against the cost of the total energy use proportional to the square of the train speed and the required power supply proportional to the cube of the train speed, both multiplied by the considerable number of trains per hour planned to use the new railway.

As it was made clear at the Transport Committee session that HS2 will be part of the national railway network and not a separate network there is also the possible consideration of being able to run other trains on the line and not just the specified HS2 trains. That affects decisions about both speed and signalling.

 

[FMerrymon]

Clearly the new HS2 railway will only go from London to Birmingham and Crewe (or Handsacre Junction) and the West Coast Mainline will be used for the rest of the route to Scotland. Old Oak Common to Birmingham Interchange is about 150km. Old Oak Common to Crewe is about 250km.

I assume the speed that the trains will run at on the new HS2 railway is not currently decided. This was not mentioned at the Transport Committee session. However reducing the travel time has to be balanced against the cost of the total energy use proportional to the square of the train speed and the required power supply proportional to the cube of the train speed, both multiplied by the considerable number of trains per hour planned to use the new railway.

As it was made clear at the Transport Committee session that HS2 will be part of the national railway network and not a separate network there is also the possible consideration of being able to run other trains on the line and not just the specified HS2 trains. That affects decisions about both speed and signalling.

They won't run other trains on the line and, to some extent, they won't be able to anyway.
The speed will continue to be what was specified originally - 360 max, but really operationally 330.
Unless the eastern branch is built, the number of trains running on it will be less than specified and it needs both Euston and phase 2a to maximise services bypassing the wcml.

 

[slowroad]

Nonsense. Northern cities' over-reliance on road is what's choking their growth.

Completely wrong. UK has invested less in roads and has a worse road network than any other European country. The Netherlands for instance has far more motorways per head and per square km. The way our cities are built (houses not flats) means that cars are often the natural choice. That is also true in the Netherlands, despite a lot of cycling and an excellent inter city rail networkn

Still, UK cities need much better intra-urban public transport coupled with compatible housing’s development (lots of flats). The tragedy of HS2 is that it has swallowed up resources that would have been much more productively used on trams and metros (and roads, too).

 

[FMerrymon]

The Northern cities need better metros/trams/urban rail. Other than that rail is marginal; roads dominate overwhelmingly for commuting and freight. If anything is suffocating growth it is the failure to invest in the road network in the way other developed countries have.

Better metros/urban rail was one of the benefits of hs2. See the Toton/emh plan for East Mids (which also included tram improvements), the wmca plan for the west midlands as a result of capacity through new street. Manchester and Leeds would have also benefitted with higher metro like frequencies into the cities once the express services were removed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

It only has to match or just beat the existing route and then timetabling can do the rest.
It doesn't need to crush it, indeed if other factors can be made more attractive it could even be somewhat slower than the fastest trains today.

If it means a change of trains compared to a direct service, then yes it has to crush it.

 

[NCT]

Better metros/urban rail was one of the benefits of hs2. See the Toton/emh plan for East Mids (which also included tram improvements), the wmca plan for the west midlands as a result of capacity through new street. Manchester and Leeds would have also benefitted with higher metro like frequencies into the cities once the express services were removed.

Exactly. HS2 would would have meant Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke train capacity available in its entirety for commuting traffic.

 

[slowroad]

Exactly. HS2 would would have meant Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke train capacity available in its entirety for commuting traffic.

But you are ignoring the vast resources required for HS2, and the much greater level of benefits that could have been obtained by using those resources in other ways. Also, existing commuter trains on those routes could lengthened if capacity is the concern.

 

[HSTEd]

It is. They are currently in the sky

The Scotland passenger market simply isn't very large.
It pales in comparison to the major rail flows in the UK.
In any case a big chunk of remaining air passengers to the central belt are connecting to other flights and thus won't switch to rail whatever you do.

EDIT:
Scotland to central belt is about half a million passengers each way per year. Which is about two pendolinos a day worth.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

If it means a change of trains compared to a direct service, then yes it has to crush it.

In terms of the ECML, HS2 would be the direct train.
The railway could simply break all classic journeys at York and connect the northern halves to HS2 instead.

And Cross Country is so ludicrously slow that even 300kph would leave it in the dust.

 

[FMerrymon]

But you are ignoring the vast resources required for HS2, and the much greater level of benefits that could have been obtained by using those resources in other ways. Also, existing commuter trains on those routes could lengthened if capacity is the concern.

And you are ignoring the vast resources required for any project in this country. Crossrail 2, for example, is now estimated at £45bn, which I believe is in 2021 prices. 8 mile bakerloo line extension £8bn. West Midlands metro extension is £98m a mile. Hs2 was actually the cheapest way to do a lot of things in one go. The effects of the line are far far wider than it's geographical line too.

Even lengthening commuter trains is difficult - for example, in Leeds, services need to share platforms. Higher frequency services are also far more attractive and lead to high growth - that is part of the definition of a metro service.

 

[slowroad]

And you are ignoring the vast resources required for any project in this country. Crossrail 2, for example, is now estimated at £45bn, which I believe is in 2021 prices. 8 mile bakerloo line extension £8bn. West Midlands metro extension is £98m a mile. Hs2 was actually the cheapest way to do a lot of things in one go. The effects of the line are far far wider than it's geographical line too.

Even lengthening commuter trains is difficult - for example, in Leeds, services need to share platforms. Higher frequency services are also far more attractive and lead to high growth - that is part of the definition of a metro service.

Fair enough. But this just points to the fact that such comparisons and assessments were not done. HS2 was basically a con job, pushed by consultants with “interests”, enthusiasts, and politicians for whom it ticked a box irrespective of cost or what it would deliver in practice.

 

[Mugby]

Fair enough. But this just points to the fact that such comparisons and assessments were not done. HS2 was basically a con job, pushed by consultants with “interests”, enthusiasts, and politicians for whom it ticked a box irrespective of cost or what it would deliver in practice.

That sums it up perfectly!

 

[The Ham]

HS2 should have been a reasonable solution.

Each train with nearly double the capacity of the current fleet average (growth of 2.5% per year from 2009 to 2037 would mean passenger numbers would double, however even at lower rates of growth doubling is still not a long way off, 1.8% per year is 2048).

If we assume a baseline of 100 in 2009 and 200 in 2037 to be on track in 2025 we'd need to be at 148 current numbers at Avanti are circa 150, so even with a significant global pandemic (where rail use hasn't reached pre pandemic levels) rail growth is broadly on track to double from 2009 to 2037.

A new line with an alignment capable of faster running in the future but using off the peg electrification and rolling stock with lower speeds (but still much faster) until such an upgrade is delivered, should have been a sensible solution.

Journey times meaning that even with longer trains the number of coaches needed to run the services didn't increase by much and less than lengthening the trains to be 12 coaches (Manchester services with 3 trains of 16 coaches on HS2 require the same number of coaches as 11+9+9 coach trains currently, yet lengthening to 12 coaches would have meant rather than needing 145 coaches there would have been a need for 180 coaches and a big upgrade bill to fit 12 coach trains at Liverpool).

Removing IC (so not just ICWC services but potentially TPE and XC services too) from busy urban stations allowing local services to be lengthened and/or see increases is frequencies (2 ICWC services occupy a single platform for an hour, 6 new local services with 6 coaches each can use that same platform, whilst if you look to lengthen existing services the numbers which benefit are much higher).

The "recent" report (it's only been published recently it's actually dated some time ago) on HS1 is using out dated passenger numbers, so if course it looks worse than it actually is if it was based on data from last year, let alone this year, rather it appears that it's data is from 3 years ago. Last year Southeastern saw growth of 7.4% (9.5 million extra passengers) and 9.3% the year before (10.9 million passengers). That's a significant difference just on the Southeastern numbers.

One final point, capacity is the train given for HS2 in this letter dated February 2009 (note the website is StopHS2, so it's unlikely they'll have altered it to show something which many opposed to HS2 day is a recent change in the argument):

http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/20090213_letter_to_lord_adonis_re_objectives_for_hs2.pdf

Passenger capacity: this is the driving consideration, including capacity released on classic lines.

The bottom line is the idea of HS2 (increasing capacity, off the peg elements but with future capability to go faster as part of a future upgrade, optimising use of rolling stock, creating capacity for local services, etc.) isn't actually that bad when trying to fix the issues.

 

[Noddy]

In 50 years time this thread will make interesting reading. Just like the disastrous white elephants that were the constructions phases of the Channel Tunnel, HS1, Edinburgh trams, or Crossrail folk will be saying what on earth were they on about.

 

[NCT]

Edinburgh tram is a good example. Disastrously executed but still a good idea and good asset once completed. So good that they extended it according to original plans.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That sums it up perfectly!

It really doesn't.

Network Rail recommended something like HS2 as part of their long term strategic planning for the network once it became apparent the ECML was going to be beyond saturation. HS2 didn't start up as some con pushed by consultants, it is required, and still is, to develop our nations infrastructure.

The fact that they have absolutely bungled delivery of it doesn't mean the concept is a con.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

In 50 years time this thread will make interesting reading. Just like the disastrous white elephants that were the constructions phases of the Channel Tunnel, HS1, Edinburgh trams, or Crossrail folk will be saying what on earth were they on about.

That may well be true because, in the old cliché, time heals everything. Today however people with good memories have not forgotten or forgiven the huge cost overruns and the late delivery of the Edinburgh tram project and Crossrail. The fact that most people have no interest in money spent sloppily before they were born does not justify projects being managed negligently.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That may well be true because, in the old cliché, time heals everything. Today however people with good memories have not forgotten or forgiven the huge cost overruns and the late delivery of the Edinburgh tram project and Crossrail. The fact that most people have no interest in money spent sloppily before they were born does not justify projects being managed negligently.

No one is arguing it does. I think what is being said is that negligent delivery does not suddenly remove the benefits of a project.

 

[InOban]

The fact that the ORR have rejected all the new OA applications because the WCML is operating at or beyond its reliable capacity shows that HS2 is essential in some form. The cancellation of 2a means that every HS train beyond Handsacre will displace an existing service shows why it has to extend to Crewe.

 

[FMerrymon]

Fair enough. But this just points to the fact that such comparisons and assessments were not done. HS2 was basically a con job, pushed by consultants with “interests”, enthusiasts, and politicians for whom it ticked a box irrespective of cost or what it would deliver in practice.

No it doesn't. It's that the cost of doing anything in this country is increasing and we need to address that. Hinkley point c is now projected to be double it's original budget, sizewell C 50% above. Road dualling schemes at 100m/mile. Are they all "con jobs" too?

The original "y" plan for hs2 was very good, but it has been misunderstood by many. Maybe it was too big a plan, too ambitious, but if people really understood it, there'd be a far greater political consensus behind it. Unfortunately, it was dismissed as just about going to Birmingham or London 20 minutes quicker. An enormous lie, which was promoted by the journalist who ended up advising its cancellation, and by a certain Lord who seems to enjoy being on the telly.

If you believe you understand it, could you explain if HS2 would benefit somewhere like Lincoln and, if so, how?

 

[SynthD]

If you believe you understand it, could you explain if HS2 would benefit somewhere like Lincoln and, if so, how?

Long distance trains don't stop at Lincoln because they are going to Scotland. If the ECML didn't have Scotland trains because they were on HS2, more of those passing through Lincoln could stop, and would have seats free. Millions of people live in cities and towns that can be swapped in to that point, so the idea that Scotland is a small market is deceptive.

 

[NCT]

It really doesn't.

Network Rail recommended something like HS2 as part of their long term strategic planning for the network once it became apparent the ECML was going to be beyond saturation. HS2 didn't start up as some con pushed by consultants, it is required, and still is, to develop our nations infrastructure.

The fact that they have absolutely bungled delivery of it doesn't mean the concept is a con.

Exactly.

If the scheme is being specified purely as a capacity project, with no focus on speed, I very much doubt it would look like this.

The rail industry might have sued capacity arguments to get labour to reverse it's position on high speed rail, but it is clear that speed played a huge role in developing the project specification in 2009/10

Are we so cerebrally challenged that we can only deal with one thing at a time?!

Just because the primary driver is capacity doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing other benefits. Most major rail schemes rely on multiple benefit streams to make the business case stack up. Journey time benefits and demand elasticities to journey times are well understood since BR days, and there's no point in not going for a standard European high-speed which *should* have commanded very little marginal cost over a 200km/h railway. Where things went wrong was the blind pursuit for 360-400km/h design speed even in areas where it probably did drive significant marginal cost, and the management of the D&B contracts where HS2 Ltd under-designed and passed too much risk which contractors then costed an arm and a leg for (for example HS2 Ltd should have taken the risk of specifying piling depth itself). And once again politicians specifying unnecessary cuttings and tunnels was a big source of cost escalation, not the scheme output specification.

That's always been my biggest issue with HS2, if I'm honest. The propaganda behind it has always been ludicrous. It's as though they felt- rightly or wrongly- that if they didn't advertise it as the biggest and shiniest thing to ever happen, something that would absolutely transform the entire country, then they wouldn't get it built.

Clearly most of the propaganda has been complete nonsense, to put it bluntly. It's also been weirdly ephemeral. It was originally all about speed and connectivity but, when people rather uncharitably started saying it was £100bn to get to Birmingham 15 minutes faster, suddenly it was all about capacity instead; the speed and connectivity went out of the window.

In technocratic quarters it *was* about capacity with speed as a bonus, but politicians decided the only way to promote the scheme politically was through speed. Technocrats are on tap not on top, what could they do? Yes, had HS2 been badged as 'West Coast Relief Line' it probably would have attracted less vociferous opposition.

The Scotland passenger market simply isn't very large.
It pales in comparison to the major rail flows in the UK.
In any case a big chunk of remaining air passengers to the central belt are connecting to other flights and thus won't switch to rail whatever you do.

From memory the combined London - Central Belt rail mode share vs air is somewhere just shy of 50% (Edinburgh higher Glasgow lower). This means the total market if all carried by rail would comfortably fill 2tph 400m trains just as HS2' business case specified. That the infrastructure stops at Golborne means you are never building huge lengths of infrastructure just to serve the 2tph (though some other European countries happily build HSLs for 2tph but I digress).

With a (rounded) 3.5h journey time, using more robust legislative measures to limit or ban London - Central Belt aviation starts to become politically reasonable - and this includes long-haul connections - Heathrow - OOC just becomes an inter-terminal transfer.

But you are ignoring the vast resources required for HS2, and the much greater level of benefits that could have been obtained by using those resources in other ways. Also, existing commuter trains on those routes could lengthened if capacity is the concern.

This is disingenuous. Cost escalations happen to just about every type of project. Let's not forget TRU is running into high billions which is probably making HS2 still look good in cost per infrastructure mile terms. Just like Edinburgh trams the cost escalations are due to a mix of delivery blunder, political ineptitude and external factors. None of those directly relate to HS2's output specification. If the requirement is for additional continuous two tracks of railway, then all things being equal, building a new line in open countryside is cheaper than trying to expand an existing highly urbanised corridor where you end up having to rebuild every station along the way and demolish hundreds of buildings.

 

[slowroad]

The fact that the ORR have rejected all the new OA applications because the WCML is operating at or beyond its reliable capacity shows that HS2 is essential in some form. The cancellation of 2a means that every HS train beyond Handsacre will displace an existing service shows why it has to extend to Crewe.

It shows that some capacity increase may be needed, not that the answer is HS2 in some form.

Just as a for instance: New St to Euston is around 1 hr 20 with 2 stops. Moor St to Marylebone is around 2 hr with 9 stops. What might be achieved by cutting out stops and - perhaps - spending some money on line speed increases?

To be clear, I am not advocating this - but if the rationale really was capacity rather than speed it is the kind of thing that deserved serious analysis.

 

[NCT]

It shows that some capacity increase may be needed, not that the answer is HS2 in some form.

Just as a for instance: New St to Euston is around 1 hr 20 with 2 stops. Moor St to Marylebone is around 2 hr with 9 stops. What might be achieved by cutting out stops and - perhaps - spending some money on line speed increases?

To be clear, I am not advocating this - but if the rationale really was capacity rather than speed it is the kind of thing that deserved serious analysis.

It seems you have a fundamentally poor understanding of how railway capacity works.

The problem with the WCML is that serving London - Birmingham, and serving London - MK - Rugby - Coventry - Birmingham are in conflict. Your very point illustrates this - cutting out stops means the MKs of the world get a worse service, a classic example of how making existing lines faster reduces capacity. You have just suggested a speed solution at the expense of capacity to a capacity problem - hypocritical much?

The WCML is serving 3 markets (local, regional, long-distance) with 2 pairs of lines. The best way of maximising capacity is for all services on each line to have the exact stopping pattern so you can run trains signal headways apart on the whole line, just like a metro, which is exactly what HS2 is designed to be (a long-distance 'metro' running 18tph in its busiest part), and what the WCML Fast Lines could become (all regional services do Euston - WFJ - MK - Rugby, some peeling off to Northampton of course).

All that was well understood from as early as 2009. Yes, the public facing communication has been muddled by politicians (though Chris Grayling in 2017 was that unlikely person to correctly state HS2 was needed to provide more capacity and a better timetable for Milton Keynes). Just because you haven't bothered to look for or understand the analysis doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

 

[SynthD]

Just as a for instance: New St to Euston is around 1 hr 20 with 2 stops. Moor St to Marylebone is around 2 hr with 9 stops. What might be achieved by cutting out stops and - perhaps - spending some money on line speed increases?

To be clear, I am not advocating this - but if the rationale really was capacity rather than speed it is the kind of thing that deserved serious analysis.

It was, NR looked into widening the WCML (requiring a lot of compulsory purchase of homes), speeding it up (barely possible) and found that a new line was best. The suggested alternatives to what HS2 is were found to be worse. This research wasn't heavily advertised at the time, which is why it keeps coming up on this forum and beyond.

 

[The Planner]

It shows that some capacity increase may be needed, not that the answer is HS2 in some form.

Just as a for instance: New St to Euston is around 1 hr 20 with 2 stops. Moor St to Marylebone is around 2 hr with 9 stops. What might be achieved by cutting out stops and - perhaps - spending some money on line speed increases?

To be clear, I am not advocating this - but if the rationale really was capacity rather than speed it is the kind of thing that deserved serious analysis.

You just end up catching the train up in front, the Chilterns is a mainly a 90/100 mph railway running on 3 minute headways, unless you are building new infrastructure for 4 tracking etc..
The gains from 100 to 125mph are often discussed here and you don't gain any significant amounts. How do you replace the connectivity for stations with removed stops?

 

[slowroad]

You just end up catching the train up in front, the Chilterns is a mainly a 90/100 mph railway running on 3 minute headways, unless you are building new infrastructure for 4 tracking etc..
The gains from 100 to 125mph are often discussed here and you don't gain any significant amounts. How do you replace the connectivity for stations with removed stops?

The question is what would it have taken to overcome some/most/all of those obstacles? What would have been the benefits compared to the costs? Ditto for other options including improvements to WCML. That is what a business case should do, whereas the actual business case was obviously a puff pice for the option favoured by the politicians and lobbyists. Basically, unless an option delivered all of the (exaggerated) benefits of HS2 it was dismissed. Much too high a bar.

At the end of a proper process HS2 may still have come out as the best option though I personally doubt it. And even if it did, if the costs had been assessed accurately it would have been dismissed as unaffordable. I suspect the proponent knew that.