Restarting HS2 East

[MarlowDonkey]

Further EMU only opportunities that might be viable with just Phase 1 include a second hourly service to Scotland (9/18 more units) and a service to Lancaster. (6 more units) alongside a Birmingham-Manchester shuttle (3 units)

Isn't there a problem that the HS2 trains will be non-tilting? Off HS2 won't they be not much faster than 80x and potentially slower than 390s with tilt?

 

[SynthD]

Who is it that orders trains without them being committed to run on such-and-such a route and from a given date? Presumably someone in an 'official' capacity considers such matters, and someone 'signs off'. Is all that secret?

Is it the HS2 Act as modified by later Acts? Very public.

 

[HSTEd]

Who is it that orders trains without them being committed to run on such-and-such a route and from a given date? Presumably someone in an 'official' capacity considers such matters, and someone 'signs off'. Is all that secret?

A cynic might suggest they ordered the trains to lock in their preferred operational paradigm before questions could be asked or things could go wrong.

Certainly far earlier than any other rolling stock order that comes to mind.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Isn't there a problem that the HS2 trains will be non-tilting? Off HS2 won't they be not much faster than 80x and potentially slower than 390s with tilt?

Tilting only saves about 10 minutes at most on the full WCML according to a train Crewe who said the tilt failed on the 390 and they only lost 10 minutes fast from Glasgow to London.

 

[BrianW]

HS2 Ltd awards landmark rolling stock contracts to Hitachi-Alstom joint venture

Major boost for UK train-building as HS2’s state-of-the-art fleet of 225mph (360km/h) high speed trains will be built by Alstom and Hitachi Rail at their factories in County Durham, Derby and Crewe Landmark contract set to support 2,500 jobs across the UK and boost the economy by over £157m...

mediacentre.hs2.org.uk

That notice was from 2021, when Grant Shapps was apparently 'in charge'. A lot has changed since then; or has it? Many contracts have 'opt out' clauses. How complete is this 'order'. Can it be stopped/paused/ slowed/ changed/ ...

Is it the HS2 Act as modified by later Acts? Very public.

A cynic might suggest they ordered the trains to lock in their preferred operational paradigm before questions could be asked or things could go wrong.

Certainly far earlier than any other rolling stock order that comes to mind.

Are these trains stood in sidings already, as has happened with other 'orders' before now. Does Lord Hendy annswer on 'developments' these days? Whe is he next due to answer to the Transport Committee? When is the Labour Party Conference- a good time to unveil good news?

 

[HSTEd]

Are these trains stood in sidings already, as has happened with other 'orders' before now. Does Lord Hendy annswer on 'developments' these days? Whe is he next due to answer to the Transport Committee? When is the Labour Party Conference- a good time to unveil good news?

As far as I know, they've not even started buiding the HS2 rolling stock yet.

 

[BrianW]

As far as I know, they've not even started buiding the HS2 rolling stock yet.

So a bit 'premature' to (re) allocate them then? Or am I misunderstanding something? Perhaps such thoughts might inform any changes that might be in mind to make to the 'order'.

While I understand there is currently an order for 54 Zefiro units, those will be used up quite quickly. Since 18 (9x2) units will be required for Scotland services, alongside 10 for Liverpool, and 6x2 for Birmingham. So that's already 40 of 54 units being used. The maximum number of trains that could reasonably be diagrammed is around 49. As such this leaves 9 "spare" trains. Manchester will require around 13 units.

Further EMU only opportunities that might be viable with just Phase 1 include a second hourly service to Scotland (9/18 more units) and a service to Lancaster. (6 more units) alongside a Birmingham-Manchester shuttle (3 units)

If Lancaster and the Birmingham-Manchester shuttle are implemented, that would then enable a separate 325M fleet for Manchester services and a battery fleet for services to Chester and Sheffield. Apart from volume and weight, there is no reason why batteries on a high speed train aren't viable.

 

[BerkshireRails]

While I understand there is currently an order for 54 Zefiro units, those will be used up quite quickly. Since 18 (9x2) units will be required for Scotland services, alongside 10 for Liverpool, and 6x2 for Birmingham. So that's already 40 of 54 units being used. The maximum number of trains that could reasonably be diagrammed is around 49. As such this leaves 9 "spare" trains. Manchester will require around 13 units.

Further EMU only opportunities that might be viable with just Phase 1 include a second hourly service to Scotland (9/18 more units) and a service to Lancaster. (6 more units) alongside a Birmingham-Manchester shuttle (3 units)

If Lancaster and the Birmingham-Manchester shuttle are implemented, that would then enable a separate 325M fleet for Manchester services and a battery fleet for services to Chester and Sheffield. Apart from volume and weight, there is no reason why batteries on a high speed train aren't viable.

Are there enough paths on West Coast Mainline for that as it seems like the Trent Valley will have to have a like for like replacement so you have to remove a classic service to fit a HS2 service in?

 

[Brubulus]

Tilting only saves about 10 minutes at most on the full WCML according to a train Crewe who said the tilt failed on the 390 and they only lost 10 minutes fast from Glasgow to London.

And this doesn't even take into account the rollout of MU limits on the north WCML.
The order was made far too early but thankfully, it was relatively small and therefore meets the needs of the core specification. I can understand officials desire to effectively hobble the rolling stock in the short term to attempt to defend the project against further cutbacks.

Those cutbacks have now happened, which necessitates that trains to Manchester are more than 200M but cannot be more than 325M. However a 325M unit would only have around 15% less capacity than a 2x200M unit.

Are there enough paths on West Coast Mainline for that as it seems like the Trent Valley will have to have a like for like replacement so you have to remove a classic service to fit a HS2 service in?

The Liverpool services would have to split with Chester and Lancaster services at Crewe, alongside only 1 conventional train per hour on the Trent Valley. The primary constraint is Colwich, which only supports 8 passenger moves per hour in each direction, so 3 Manchester services, 2 Liverpool/Lancaster/Chester 1 Scotland and 1 Birmingham-Manchester.

The Birmingham-Manchester service also has a political aspect to it as it enables there to be a non London HS2 service that reduces journey times by around 15%.

The current HS2 plans call for a classic service to Chester, but this seems like a waste of paths through Colwich and if batteries are needed for HS2 to Sheffield, there is limited reason to argue that they should not be used to spread the benefits of HS2 towards Chester and North Wales.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose you could mitigate Colwich somewhat if you could rebuild Rugeley Trent Valley to permit the line between Handsacre and Colwich to move to paired by destination. Then the Stoke-Colwich line could be reached from HS2 without interacting with the main Trent Valley line at all.

Would require crossing moves at Handsacre to access the line via Stafford though. But it could allow a bunch of Birmingham-Manchester trains operating as extensions of existing services from Stoke et al.
That's rather off topic though.

I think the primary limitation here is the ability to produce a train with 320kph (or near 320kph) performance that can travel significant distances on unelectrified railways.

 

[Shrop]

We seem to be heading towards ever more embarrassing territory with the amount of questionable aspects of HS2. Can anyone sum up just what benefits HS2 in its present form will offer to the UK? With my interest in rail travel I'm often asked this question by friends, family, friends of friends etc, but it's increasingly hard to offer much positive response to their questions ...

 

[The Planner]

Tilting only saves about 10 minutes at most on the full WCML according to a train Crewe who said the tilt failed on the 390 and they only lost 10 minutes fast from Glasgow to London.

They are wrong, its around 15. It's 9 Euston to Carlisle alone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2025 ==

We seem to be heading towards ever more embarrassing territory with the amount of questionable aspects of HS2. Can anyone sum up just what benefits HS2 in its present form will offer to the UK? With my interest in rail travel I'm often asked this question by friends, family, friends of friends etc, but it's increasingly hard to offer much positive response to their questions ...

In terms of phase 1 sitting on its own, not a lot. Do Phase 2A and its different.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2025 ==

And this doesn't even take into account the rollout of MU limits on the north WCML.

There is no defined proposal for that to happen.

The Liverpool services would have to split with Chester and Lancaster services at Crewe, alongside only 1 conventional train per hour on the Trent Valley. The primary constraint is Colwich, which only supports 8 passenger moves per hour in each direction, so 3 Manchester services, 2 Liverpool/Lancaster/Chester 1 Scotland and 1 Birmingham-Manchester.

Phase 1 has nothing going to Chester.

 

[Austriantrain]

We seem to be heading towards ever more embarrassing territory with the amount of questionable aspects of HS2. Can anyone sum up just what benefits HS2 in its present form will offer to the UK? With my interest in rail travel I'm often asked this question by friends, family, friends of friends etc, but it's increasingly hard to offer much positive response to their questions ...

As long as the Euston extension gets built and Euston HS2 Station capable of dealing with 18 departures an hour (or at least prepared for expansion), I believe that nothing is lost. Once the Great British public sees how useful High Speed Intercity Services can be, I would expect pressure to expand the HS line.

 

[HSTEd]

Even the cut down six platform station is likely to be able to get up to an impressive number of departures per hour in practice.

 

[Austriantrain]

Even the cut down six platform station is likely to be able to get up to an impressive number of departures per hour in practice.

Maybe, but not providing for 18 departures an hour means never using all available capacity. If you can do it with six platforms then fine; if not, then that is the real HS2 fail (cancelled phases can be uncancelled or re-planned; rebuilding a newly-built Euston HS2 for more departures would be the ultimate waste of public Funds).

 

[HSTEd]

Maybe, but not providing for 18 departures an hour means never using all available capacity. If you can do it with six platforms then fine; if not, then that is the real HS2 fail (cancelled phases can be uncancelled or re-planned; rebuilding a newly-built Euston HS2 for more departures would be the ultimate waste of public Funds).

I know its Japan, but they manage ~15 departures per hour on the 4 platforms assigned to the Tohoku Shinkansen (plus branches) at Tokyo station, using trackwork with only six sets of point ends.
I think six can probably manage ~18, but it will resemble Fenchurch Street or Charing Cross in operation more than Euston.

I guess it depends on what you believe the character of the service will be - I think (like any succesful railway), the bulk of the passengers on any given train will be regulars or semi regulars, so can probably be expected to be well 'drilled'.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is specifically about "Restarting HS2 East". It is not meant to be a discussion about HS2 in general.

Thanks

 

[chris2]

HS2’s Eastern Arm Version 3 – Greengauge 21

Recent article suggests that retaining the spur may be to connect HS2 to the Birmingham-Derby line.

There’s a discussion in the document about the possibility of re-siting the stub further north. The thinking is that the section of line between delta and Handsacre is mostly on pause, therefore there could be opportunity to redesign it to utilise more of the HS2 line, speeding up the journey further.

What do people think about this?

My basic understanding of the track layout is that you have six tracks at the northern point of delta which combine into two pairs splitting west and east. Would you therefore have to widen the main HS2 alignment to four tracks until the point of divergence?

Regardless of where it goes, it doesn’t sound smart to make the connection conventional line speed because then you have to do all your acceleration/ deceleration on HS2 rather than off it. I always thought the point was to have a main HS spine without big gaps in it to accommodate slower movements.

 

[HSTEd]

Moving the connection further north would, if I'm reading the map right, require abandoning any attempt to serve Tamworth.

I'm not sure that is worth it. Honestly I would operate Birmingham-North East services as extensions of the London-Birmingham services. Even with the reversal it would still beat the conventional railway on London-Tamworth. Not a huge load centre but not a tiny one either

 

[Brubulus]

There’s a discussion in the document about the possibility of re-siting the stub further north. The thinking is that the section of line between delta and Handsacre is mostly on pause, therefore there could be opportunity to redesign it to utilise more of the HS2 line, speeding up the journey further.

What do people think about this?

My basic understanding of the track layout is that you have six tracks at the northern point of delta which combine into two pairs splitting west and east. Would you therefore have to widen the main HS2 alignment to four tracks until the point of divergence?

Regardless of where it goes, it doesn’t sound smart to make the connection conventional line speed because then you have to do all your acceleration/ deceleration on HS2 rather than off it. I always thought the point was to have a main HS spine without big gaps in it to accommodate slower movements.

From what I've heard, it would be substantially more difficult and expensive than just using the infrastructure at Delta Junction. This is alongside the fact that speeds would likely be limited on a curve near Lichfield, if that's what you're imagining.

 

[The Planner]

There’s a discussion in the document about the possibility of re-siting the stub further north. The thinking is that the section of line between delta and Handsacre is mostly on pause, therefore there could be opportunity to redesign it to utilise more of the HS2 line, speeding up the journey further.

What do people think about this?

My basic understanding of the track layout is that you have six tracks at the northern point of delta which combine into two pairs splitting west and east. Would you therefore have to widen the main HS2 alignment to four tracks until the point of divergence?

Regardless of where it goes, it doesn’t sound smart to make the connection conventional line speed because then you have to do all your acceleration/ deceleration on HS2 rather than off it. I always thought the point was to have a main HS spine without big gaps in it to accommodate slower movements.

You want your acceleration and deceleration off HS2, not on it. Redesign costs money and time. Leave it as it is.

 

[Nottingham59]

There’s a discussion in the document about the possibility of re-siting the stub further north. The thinking is that the section of line between delta and Handsacre is mostly on pause, therefore there could be opportunity to redesign it to utilise more of the HS2 line, speeding up the journey further.

What do people think about this?

Keep the stub where it is. It's already in the design and it needs to be close to the northen corner of the Delta, which is already being built.

The maximum speed of trains diverging from HS2 is 230kph. The four track layout as designed allows diverging trains to slow down to this speed without holding up 360kph trains coming up behind them from London. It also allows simultaneous movements of both London-Crewe/Birmingham-Spur, and London-Spur/Birmingham-Crewe. That flexibility will be really valuable in the future, wherever the Spur eventually connects to.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Keep the stub where it is. It's already in the design and it needs to be close to the northen corner of the Delta, which is already being built.

I agree.

If anything I think it would be better to build a conventional line on the proposed alignment all the way to EMP.

 

[NCT]

If you are building a new line anyway, why build conventional?

 

[daodao]

I agree.

If anything I think it would be better to build a conventional line on the proposed alignment all the way to EMP.

It would be cheaper and more beneficial to join the stub leaving HS2 to the Birmingham-Derby line, to provide a 2tph fast service from London Euston to Derby and Sheffield city centres, rather than poorly sited out of town stations such as East Midlands Parkway.

 

[Nottingham59]

It would be cheaper and more beneficial to join the stub leaving HS2 to the Birmingham-Derby line, to provide a 2tph fast service from London Euston to Derby and Sheffield city centres, rather than poorly sited out of town stations such as East Midlands Parkway.

Agree 2tph London-Sheffield direct.

Then add a 2tph from Curzon St to Nottingham and 2tph Curzon St to Leeds releasing more capacity in New Street for commuter services into and through Birmingham. These could be run with conventional 125mph stock without taking capacity from the HS2 mainline, if they could handle the platforms at Curzon St.

Alternatively, the services from Curzon St onto the spur could even be run as continuations of the HS2 London-Birmingham shuttles, to give slower but high capacity London-Curzon St-Derby-Leeds/Nottingham services.

 

[SynthD]

centres, rather than poorly sited out of town stations such as East Midlands Parkway.

While there would be a large car park at the HS2 station called East Midlands Hub, it’s also in Long Eaton/Toton. This is in a built up area of several hundred thousand people, depending on what you count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_Urban_Area

It would be cheaper and more beneficial to join the stub leaving HS2 to the Birmingham-Derby line, to provide a 2tph fast service from London Euston to Derby and Sheffield city centres

Yes, from Kingsbury it’s only two miles to the line approaching Tamworth. But more beneficial? It depends what else the money is spent on. Can you fit a 2tph fast service in the current 10tph use of the line? Unfortunately, Nottingham and Leicester wouldn’t benefit but for such a drastically different plan that’s quite small.

 

[Nottingham59]

an you fit a 2tph fast service in the current 10tph use of the line?

There's 2tph 170s to Nottingham, and 2tph XC Voyagers to Sheffield and the North East, plus a bit of freight. The line is only full because the 125mph 221s catch up with the 100mph slowly-accelerating 170s. Changing the 170s to 221 Voyagers would fix that problem.

 

[InTheEastMids]

If anything I think it would be better to build a conventional line on the proposed alignment all the way to EMP.

I think I am pretty much a Parkway-sceptic as far as HS2 is concerned, and that's not really about the value of Parkway station itself.

Firstly, the route to Derby via Parkway is pretty indirect and I didn't think Derby/Sheffield would be any quicker than joining the existing network around Tamworth, which means a lot of the benefit would be capacity by essentially quad-tracking Birmingham to Derby.

However, if you're building this fantastic high speed line to Parkway then you want to sweat the asset. But if the whole point is to run from Parkway through Trent/Sheet Stores and into Derby or Nottingham, then either there may be a lot of money to be spent on upgrades, or you have to sacrifice local/intra regional connectivity between the 3 main cities (and there is probably significant benefits to be had from improving frequencies between the cities). I'm sure work was done but I never saw anything published that addressed it, I don't think the IRP did.

The original Toton EM Hub at least had some clarity of purpose that was basically about being an ECML bypass to get to Sheffield, Leeds and beyond.

Then add a 2tph from Curzon St to Nottingham

I agree, this could be the silver lining from Midlands Rail Hub East being postponed*, so much better than having 170s trundling round to Moor Street.
Leicester (entirely predictably) misses out again though.

*It is at least plausible that one reason why MRH East has been deferred is because it's been optioneered against HS2 to Tamworth.
Although the even more plausible reason is that HMT won't invest.

 

[chris2]

You want your acceleration and deceleration off HS2, not on it. Redesign costs money and time. Leave it as it is.

Yes I agree.

But isn’t it the case that trains to/from London taking the eastern spur would have to decelerate / accelerate on the main HS2 line if the line directly after the spur was built to conventional speed?

Not such an issue if the train’s coming from / going to Birmingham as they won’t be going top speed through delta.

The maximum speed of trains diverging from HS2 is 230kph. The four track layout as designed allows diverging trains to slow down to this speed without holding up 360kph trains coming up behind them from London

When you say diverging from HS2, do you mean the curzon spur? Both west and east spurs north of delta are - or at least were originally intended to be - main HS2 lines, so neither direction was a divergence from HS2 in the original plans.

My assumption therefore would be that both spurs would be full 300kph line speed hence my point about the subsequent new line being slower. But my assumption could be wrong.