Chris Gibb - fallout from HS2 proposal on stock and what are/were the options

[Bald Rick]

then I must be imagining the numbers of people on platform 11 at Crewe who I'm sure I remember seeing getting on the Glasgow and Edinburgh trains.

Probably not going to Glasgow or Edinburgh, though.

 

[HSTEd]

Something that must not be overlooked is the length and configuration of the maintenance depot for the HS2 fleet. If you move away from 200m units (however attractive that might seem for various valid reasons) you potentially incur massive depot redesign costs.

Depots are not particularly expensive in the grand scheme of things.

I would be surprised if redesigning the depot at this stage significantly increased the value of the rolling stock contract.

The site does not appear particularly constrained from aerial photography in any case.

We should not cripple a service purchased at the cost of tens of billions because a depot redesign might cost tens of millions.

Especially as we have many years before opening. As far as I can tell they've not even let the contract yet.

 

[Bald Rick]

We should not cripple a service purchased at the cost of tens of billions because a depot redesign might cost tens of millions.

That is one of the reaosns the whole thing is costing what it is… we are spending tens of billions therefore we shouldnt spoil the end product by not providing slab track / an immovable formation / fully oaved haul roads / bat tunnels / etc.

 

[AndrewE]

Probably not going to Glasgow or Edinburgh, though.

but even if they are going to Preston, the Lakes or Carlisle those are (that is) the only service.

 

[Shrop]

Just breezing through this thread (and others), it gives me no pleasure to observe that in summary HS2 seems to be mainly notable for the following ...

1. It has gone massively over budget;
2. Its biggest time savings by far (ie to Manchester and Leeds) have been not just cut from the scheme, but the leader of the UK has actively tried to ensure that these major benefits can never be achieved;
3. What remains of the scheme MIGHT be completed in another TWELVE YEARS from now, ie a fair bit longer than considerably more extensive schemes have taken to get from the very first start of construction, to completion in some other countries. (Please feel free to contest this point if you justifiably can).
4. When this hideously expensive, hugely unpopular, and greatly delayed London-centric scheme is finally delivered, it will come with a long list of compromises beyond the above, such as some towns and cities getting reduced services, and others getting nothing like the improvements they have been promised, among many other things.

So, am I just repeating the obvious, or am I being unfair? Whilst it's clear that our politicians and indeed our whole political system have seriously compromised the UK's capability to produce HS2, are our design capabilities also inferior to those of Spain, France, China, Japan, and other countries?

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm not sure it's our "design capabilities" as much as our "ability to build infrastructure for a reasonable cost capabilities".

 

[Mr. SW]

I don't think there's any single reason except to say "All of the Above", which applies to all previous comments and forums, plus a few others I can think of: Amateurism, Classism, Arrogance, Failure to learn from previous episodes, Not listening to informed sources, Failure to understand the points of view of others, Neo-Conservatism, Neo-Liberalism, Inability to understand statistics, Confusion between Capital and Operational Expenditure, and even Poor Education (Yes, being taught in a posh school and going to either of the Universities does not necessarily impart wisdom, insight and leadership. It only means your parents are rich.)

I'm going to stop now before I throw my laptop across the room and roll on the floor screaming.

 

[The Ham]

Part of the issue with the 200m sets is that there's a perception that all the current services are 11 coach class 390's with their 607 seats.

However, whilst they make up the majority of services there's still about 2 out of every 5 units which are 9 coaches.

If we average the capacity across the fleet then it's 564 seats per unit. This compares with 550 seats per unit of the HS2 sets.

If things are so bad that the extra (on average) 14 seats per set are that critical then it's certainly worth building more infrastructure to cater for more 400m services to be run.

Also, until recently, that average fleet seat number would have been 553 seats (so only 3 seats difference).

Yes I understand that on individual services it matters that an extra 57 seats can make a difference (again until recently the difference was 39).

However, how many services does that actually impact?

Yes we should be planning for more capacity, however if HS2 is really over a decade away, then planning for 400m trains to run to certain stations beyond HS2 infrastructure is likely to be the best way to do so.

For example being able to run 400m trains to Carlisle to split to run a service to Edinburgh and a service to Glasgow would create a lot more capacity (even if only a few people are heading to Glasgow to then go elsewhere, which is also not a bad connection from Edinburgh, then that's maybe enough to offset the capacity issues).

The cost of such platforms, which would still be useful if more of HS2 is built, would be fairly limited.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If things are so bad that the extra (on average) 14 seats per set are that critical then it's certainly worth building more infrastructure to cater for more 400m services to be run.

Don't forget the sparks effect. When it opens there will be massive growth. We don't want another XC.

 

[RailWonderer]

Don't forget the sparks effect. When it opens there will be massive growth. We don't want another XC.

They could introduce a different pricing system for HS2 services and have single leg pricing at 30-40% more than legacy WCML services to reduce overcrowding.

bat tunnels / etc.

That was the absurd one. Why not rehome a few bats rather than spend £100m on a tunnel to protect them. UK laws are notriously overregulated and over the top which is partly why things are costing as much as they are - as well as having some of the world's highest energy prices. The budget overran also because it was far too ambitious from the start and they had to spend millions on redesigns scaling it back.

 

[AndrewE]

That was the absurd one. Why not rehome a few bats rather than spend £100m on a tunnel to protect them. UK laws are notriously overregulated and over the top which is partly why things are costing as much as they are - as well as having some of the world's highest energy prices. The budget overran also because it was far too ambitious from the start and they had to spend millions on redesigns scaling it back.

Wrong. There was no regulatory or consultation input to the bat tunnel design. The financial structure of HS2 is such that company people and contractors can do anything they can seem to justify (with no external oversight) and then just add the extra costs to the bill they pass upwards.

This has damaged the image of conservation and given no-evidence regressive social media assertions lots of fuel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They could introduce a different pricing system for HS2 services and have single leg pricing at 30-40% more than legacy WCML services to reduce overcrowding.

Cancel it then. HS2 has failed if it doesn't reduce car and air journeys; in that case it is basically worthless bar a minor WCML punctuality gain.

A capacity uplift is essential.

 

[RailWonderer]

Cancel it then. HS2 has failed if it doesn't reduce car and air journeys; in that case it is basically worthless bar a minor WCML punctuality gain.

A capacity uplift is essential.

It provides more capacity which should drive prices down in theory (or at best, prices stay level, only rising with inflation) but capacity will still be limited past Brum/Crewe when they still have to use the legacy lines into Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland. I don't think car journeys will fall as families will still find road journeys to be cheaper with hybrids and EVs. For air journeys, passengers still want to connect at Heathrow and not have to get there from Euston.

I think it will still be worth it but it really needed a branch into Manchester to be worth it in the shorter term.

 

[Krokodil]

They could introduce a different pricing system for HS2 services and have single leg pricing at 30-40% more than legacy WCML services to reduce overcrowding.

The whole point of the project is to increase capacity.

They just need to get on and lengthen the platforms at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle, plus extend platform 1 and build platforms 0, -1 and -2 at Man Picc. Yes, having the HS services conflicting with services leaving towards Ardwick will be a headache for planners and signallers, but that should just provide the impetus to get on and build a grade-separated, dedicated route out of Manchester.

 

[fishwomp]

It provides more capacity which should drive prices down in theory[..]

Don't forget the likely monopoly supplier here - the Government sets the prices. It also sets track access price for any open access ideas (HS2 or classic).

Wrong. There was no regulatory or consultation input to the bat tunnel design. The financial structure of HS2 is such that company people and contractors can do anything they can seem to justify (with no external oversight) and then just add the extra costs to the bill they pass upwards.

uh-oh.. so basically given a cost-plus contract, if you say "cripes, but what if there were a chicken needing to cross the line" then I'd fund a chicken run, and you'd make x% profit due to that cost-plus nature. It can't be that simple??

 

[Krokodil]

For air journeys, passengers still want to connect at Heathrow and not have to get there from Euston.

From OOC, not Euston.

And air journeys primarily means those from Scotland

 

[RailWonderer]

And air journeys primarily means those from Scotland

Connecting passengers from Scotland via Heathrow still want to be covered in case of delays and cancellations. When you connect by plane, it's all covered, but by train, a delay or cancellation or melting cable means potentially missing flights without cover. I know someone who flies Easyjet from London - Glasgow and Edinburgh with hand luggage only in the early morning/evening and saves on the train who might take the train after HS2, which will be good for rail, but air passnegers heading to/from London to connect will prefer cover in the event of problems.

 

[AndrewE]

uh-oh.. so basically given a cost-plus contract, if you say "cripes, but what if there were a chicken needing to cross the line" then I'd fund a chicken run, and you'd make x% profit due to that cost-plus nature. It can't be that simple??

not far wrong: NCE has a write-up https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...s-before-opting-for-119m-bat-shed-09-05-2025/
See https://www.bats.org.uk/news/2025/04/hs2-bat-tunnel-dangerous-spin-behind-deregulation

The tunnel was not forced by conservationists or wildlife laws - it was a consequence of poor decisions made by HS2 Ltd and approved by parliament. Now, politicians are misrepresenting this history to push the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB), a law that won’t fix planning delays but will put nature at greater risk.

This page breaks down the facts: what the bat tunnel really is, who approved it, and why weakening protections won’t solve the UK’s planning challenges.

also (in NCE)

The structure will also be used to protect a section of East West Rail (EWR) if the route is extended to Aylesbury in the future. This is because HS2 runs parallel to the Aylesbury Link Line, which forms part of potential future sections of EWR.

so more than double the actual required size

 

[Krokodil]

Connecting passengers from Scotland via Heathrow still want to be covered in case of delays and cancellations.

While Heathrow is Edinburgh's busiest domestic destination, Stansted and Luton between them almost match it. Birmingham represents a quarter of a million passengers too.

 

[Trainbike46]

Connecting passengers from Scotland via Heathrow still want to be covered in case of delays and cancellations. When you connect by plane, it's all covered, but by train, a delay or cancellation or melting cable means potentially missing flights without cover. I know someone who flies Easyjet from London - Glasgow and Edinburgh with hand luggage only in the early morning/evening and saves on the train who might take the train after HS2, which will be good for rail, but air passnegers heading to/from London to connect will prefer cover in the event of problems.

Lufthansa, KLM, and Air France all offer protected connections from certain rail connections booked as part of the flight; there is no reason this can't be offered for flights from Heathrow, Birmingham Airport, and Manchester airport in combination with HS2 services from HS2 stations.

 

[NCT]

Lufthansa, KLM, and Air France all offer protected connections from certain rail connections booked as part of the flight; there is no reason this can't be offered for flights from Heathrow, Birmingham Airport, and Manchester airport in combination with HS2 services from HS2 stations.

Quite. And if the market needs some legislative push, then so be it.

 

[Shrop]

Lufthansa, KLM, and Air France all offer protected connections from certain rail connections booked as part of the flight; there is no reason this can't be offered for flights from Heathrow, Birmingham Airport, and Manchester airport in combination with HS2 services from HS2 stations.

Let me understand this, when you say that connections which involve transfers between rail and air are protected, what does this mean and how does it work?

 

[Trainbike46]

Let me understand this, when you say that connections which involve transfers between rail and air are protected, what does this mean and how does it work?

It means that those airlines sell train tickets for selected connections as part of the air fare, and that connections onto the flights are protected in the same way a connection between two flights bought as a single ticket from the airline would be. A key point is that the protection is usually only offered if the train and subsequent flight are booked on the same ticket.

For example, KLM offers tickets that are Eurostar Red from Brussels South station to Schiphol, combined with a KLM (and partners) flight from Schiphol to the passengers final destination. A delay on the Eurostar is treated the exact same as a delay on a flight into schiphol would be. I have attached an example itinerary from Brussels to Aberdeen by KLM including an Eurostar Red leg for Brussels-Schiphol and a KLM cityhopper leg for Schiphol-Aberdeen (Dyce).

Lufthansa offers this for selected ICE connections, and Air France offers this for the connection Brussels South-Charles de Gaulle on TGV (and possibly other routes).

It would be entirely feasible for airlines flying from Heathrow, Birmingham Airport, and Manchester airport to offer this from the other HS2 stations. For example, an airline flying from Manchester would offer tickets Euston-Manchester Airport-Destination X if a potential passenger searches for London-destination X.

The advantage for airlines is that they can offer connections from a wider range of origins and destinations without having to waste valuable slots at places like Schiphol, CDG, or heathrow on short (and not very lucrative) flights to destinations like Brussels or Manchester.



Edited to add link to Lufthansa page

 

[The Ham]

Don't forget the sparks effect. When it opens there will be massive growth. We don't want another XC.

Indeed, however as I said, we've got a few years until it opens.

Even then, if you've got to spend (say) £100 million to lengthen some platforms but it allows 30 services a day each way to run with an extra 100 passengers you'd only need 10 years of those passengers paying £5 of their ticket price to cover the costs of the platform lengthenings.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let me understand this, when you say that connections which involve transfers between rail and air are protected, what does this mean and how does it work?

Exactly the same way as it does between national rail operators and Eurostar

 

[Shrop]

It means that those airlines sell train tickets for selected connections as part of the air fare, and that connections onto the flights are protected in the same way a connection between two flights bought as a single ticket from the airline would be. A key point is that the protection is usually only offered if the train and subsequent flight are booked on the same ticket.

For example, KLM offers tickets that are Eurostar Red from Brussels South station to Schiphol, combined with a KLM (and partners) flight from Schiphol to the passengers final destination. A delay on the Eurostar is treated the exact same as a delay on a flight into schiphol would be. I have attached an example itinerary from Brussels to Aberdeen by KLM including an Eurostar Red leg for Brussels-Schiphol and a KLM cityhopper leg for Schiphol-Aberdeen (Dyce).

Lufthansa offers this for selected ICE connections, and Air France offers this for the connection Brussels South-Charles de Gaulle on TGV (and possibly other routes).

It would be entirely feasible for airlines flying from Heathrow, Birmingham Airport, and Manchester airport to offer this from the other HS2 stations. For example, an airline flying from Manchester would offer tickets Euston-Manchester Airport-Destination X if a potential passenger searches for London-destination X.

The advantage for airlines is that they can offer connections from a wider range of origins and destinations without having to waste valuable slots at places like Schiphol, CDG, or heathrow on short (and not very lucrative) flights to destinations like Brussels or Manchester.

View attachment 185491

Edited to add link to Lufthansa page

Exactly the same way as it does between national rail operators and Eurostar

Thanks for these comments, but what I don't quite get is this ... When you book a train trip in the UK involving more than one train, your chances of catching your second train are dependent upon your first train arriving in time to catch your connection. Now, your second train generally won't wait for your first one if it's running late, so a calculation is made which tells you what is a reasonable time to allow between trains. At smaller stations this might be around 5 minutes, or perhaps twice that or slightly more at bigger stations. However, in practice your second train is unlikely to actually wait if your first one is running late, often even if both trains are run by the same operator. So how do connections work from rail to air, when they certainly can't be relied upon between trains, other than by chance and by allowing sufficiently lengthy periods between them?

 

[JamesT]

Thanks for these comments, but what I don't quite get is this ... When you book a train trip in the UK involving more than one train, your chances of catching your second train are dependent upon your first train arriving in time to catch your connection. Now, your second train generally won't wait for your first one if it's running late, so a calculation is made which tells you what is a reasonable time to allow between trains. At smaller stations this might be around 5 minutes, or perhaps twice that or slightly more at bigger stations. However, in practice your second train is unlikely to actually wait if your first one is running late, often even if both trains are run by the same operator. So how do connections work from rail to air, when they certainly can't be relied upon between trains, other than by chance and by allowing sufficiently lengthy periods between them?

If you miss your second train due to the first one being late, you can travel on the next train with no additional payment. If you miss a flight connection where it’s a through booking, the airline will put you on the next flight in a similar fashion.

The proposed protection which already exists in other countries as mentioned by @Trainbike46 would be to sell through tickets involving both rail and air. Should a delay on one mode result in you missing your connection to another, you would be entitled to take the next train/flight with no detriment to yourself.

 

[Shrop]

If you miss your second train due to the first one being late, you can travel on the next train with no additional payment. If you miss a flight connection where it’s a through booking, the airline will put you on the next flight in a similar fashion.

The proposed protection which already exists in other countries as mentioned by @Trainbike46 would be to sell through tickets involving both rail and air. Should a delay on one mode result in you missing your connection to another, you would be entitled to take the next train/flight with no detriment to yourself.

This is great except when it isn't. If I book an advance rail ticket involving more than one train, the chances are that my second train will only be valid with one particular train operator. So if I miss my connection then in practice I can't actually catch the next available train if it has a different operator, I have to wait for the next train that is running by the same operator as the one I missed ( which would be through the fault of the operator of the first train, or whatever made their train late).
So if the operator of my second train runs infrequent services, this could cause quite big delays

 

[Trainbike46]

This is great except when it isn't. If I book an advance rail ticket involving more than one train, the chances are that my second train will only be valid with one particular train operator. So if I miss my connection then in practice I can't actually catch the next available train if it has a different operator, I have to wait for the next train that is running by the same operator as the one I missed ( which would be through the fault of the operator of the first train, or whatever made their train late).
So if the operator of my second train runs infrequent services, this could cause quite big delays

It's the exact same situation as when connecting between two flights.

 

[RailWonderer]

This is great except when it isn't. If I book an advance rail ticket involving more than one train, the chances are that my second train will only be valid with one particular train operator. So if I miss my connection then in practice I can't actually catch the next available train if it has a different operator, I have to wait for the next train that is running by the same operator as the one I missed ( which would be through the fault of the operator of the first train, or whatever made their train late).
So if the operator of my second train runs infrequent services, this could cause quite big delays

It's a non-issue because if GBR cuts a deal with airlines to offer protected connections on HS2 services to flights via OOC, the rail tickets won't be operator specific, HS2 will be ran by GBR.