Restarting HS2a

[Snow1964]

I suppose there is some clever thinking behind this, if build bits of Manchester-Liverpool line under NPR then then you effectively have a gap (Hansacre - Cheshire) in two higher speed lines.

If there is an intention (even if just words from tomorrow), then there is sort of case to extend each one towards the other. Might be in stages, but presumably common sense will kick in and lot of MPs will be pushing for gap to be closed, especially if gap gets shorter due to piecemeal extensions.

Of course there is a much shorter gap HS1-HS2 that isn't much talked about, but which could ultimately link trains directly to Europe (and I know the current border system is a blocker, but might not be in couple of decades). Some Brits might like a direct train to Alps, Italy or Spain

Plus there is the 4 track section roughly from Hampton in Arden to Lee Marston, which is being built, but will be rather overkill without a branch to East Midlands / north east, and/or a South western spur towards the Bristol / Cardiff line.

 

[Verulamius]

If HS2a is built prior to NPR west then there is little additional passenger capacity created.

Building Liverpool Warrington Manchester could create the necessary terminal capacity for the HS2 trains.

 

[JamesT]

I think the positioning of this as a "New Birmingham-Manchester line to built at some point in the future" instead of revive HS2 Phase 2A is likely deisgned to give the government options.

If the NPR line is happening, building the existing HS2 Phase 2A is probably suboptimal in any case.

After all, what's your remaining rationale to go ~20km out of your way from Handsacre to Manchester to go to Crewe, when the fastest route to all destinations reached from crewe will likely be via Manchester Airport and the NPR line anyway?

Liverpool = Manchester Airport + NPR line to Liverpool.
Northern WCML = Manchester Airport + NPR line to vicinity Warrington + WCML North.

Given the political toxicity of anything associated with HS2, I doubt the existing concept is politically tenable in any case.

Of course, since NPR seems to be making very little progress, it is also a handy way to kick it into the long grass without appearing to do so explicitly.

It may be sunk cost fallacy, but continuing with the existing Phase 2a route avoids having to go through the whole process again?
You don't need to design a new route, battle with the NIMBYs to get it through parliament, buy the land for the new route.
Crewe would have also acted as a hub for people connecting to HS2 services. If you take a different route, do you provide that facility somewhere else?

 

[Mikey C]

Once the London to Birmingham section of HS2 opens, then the pressure to extend it northwards will massively grow.

The nature of large transport projects is that while they are unpopular with some when being built, they quickly become part of the norm. Nobody in London questions the Elizabeth Line or Jubilee Line extension now, while HS1 has quickly become an essential part of the transport infrastructure.

 

[HSTEd]

It may be sunk cost fallacy, but continuing with the existing Phase 2a route avoids having to go through the whole process again?
You don't need to design a new route, battle with the NIMBYs to get it through parliament, buy the land for the new route.

We will have to go through the process again for Phase 2b in any case.
However, this project will not be occurring soon, so there is no shortage of time, using what we have learned from the HS2 debacle on how not to get public buy in for such schemes.

As for cost, the costs up to now are only a small portion of the projected cost of going to Phase 2A.
Even before cancellation HS2 was speaking about "up to £7bn", given the cost growth on the rest of the scheme, a new design could quite plausibly reduce overall costs - especially if it ends up shorter.

Crewe would have also acted as a hub for people connecting to HS2 services. If you take a different route, do you provide that facility somewhere else?

I'd argue that, in a post NPR world, Manchester Airport and/or Manchester Piccadilly can perform this job far more effectively than Crewe.

 

[Sorcerer]

I think HS2 is one of those things where most of those in the electorate who have an opinion do not like HS2. All those who could/should benefit from HS2 cannot be bothered to work it out.
So, in a nut shell, HS2 just is perhaps not important (even if it should be).

Unfortunately infrastructure projects like HS2 can be a hard sell because those who don't see the immediate benefit don't see why they should pay for it, especially those who will see the line run through their back gardens without the luxury of a station to go along with it. The benefits for most people are more long-term and indirect.

The name, despite being consistent with high-speed line naming conventions in the UK (HS1), also doesn't sell it's true purpose as a relief line. Perhaps if it was initially named the "West Coast Relief Link" and then later became known as HS2 similarly to how HS1 was originally called the Channel Tunnel Rail Link then it might've been an easier sell.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It may be sunk cost fallacy, but continuing with the existing Phase 2a route avoids having to go through the whole process again?
You don't need to design a new route, battle with the NIMBYs to get it through parliament, buy the land for the new route.
Crewe would have also acted as a hub for people connecting to HS2 services. If you take a different route, do you provide that facility somewhere else?

If getting to Crewe has got beyond the design and NIMBY phases then what a waste giving up now. Sends a message - NIMBYSs can win.

Once the London to Birmingham section of HS2 opens, then the pressure to extend it northwards will massively grow.

The nature of large transport projects is that while they are unpopular with some when being built, they quickly become part of the norm. Nobody in London questions the Elizabeth Line or Jubilee Line extension now, while HS1 has quickly become an essential part of the transport infrastructure.

I do hope this is true. That means the lesson to learn was to not go as far North as Handacre until Phase 2. Instead we have the risk of Euston being a runt beyond Old Oak Common.

We will have to go through the process again for Phase 2b in any case.
However, this project will not be occurring soon, so there is no shortage of time, using what we have learned from the HS2 debacle on how not to get public buy in for such schemes.

As for cost, the costs up to now are only a small portion of the projected cost of going to Phase 2A.
Even before cancellation HS2 was speaking about "up to £7bn", given the cost growth on the rest of the scheme, a new design could quite plausibly reduce overall costs - especially if it ends up shorter.


I'd argue that, in a post NPR world, Manchester Airport and/or Manchester Piccadilly can perform this job far more effectively than Crewe.

I have often wondered if Crewe is that important an interchange. I look at Birmingham New Street and that seems a far busier interchange.

My instinct is still to go to Crewe BUT you have a point that if HS2 got straight to Manchester then that would be better for the connections that are otherwise made at Crewe. Manchester brings in connections to the other side of the Pennines but also serves North Wales and Liverpool rather well. Overall I think that if the current Phase 2a is to be dropped then there should be a long hard look at a NPR x HS2 interchange in Manchester - close to Piccadilly tbh, closer than Birmingham Curzon Street is to Birmingham New Street.

I still think HS2 should have gone through Birmingham anyway so going through Manchester aids connections Northwards.

Unfortunately infrastructure projects like HS2 can be a hard sell because those who don't see the immediate benefit don't see why they should pay for it, especially those who will see the line run through their back gardens without the luxury of a station to go along with it. The benefits for most people are more long-term and indirect.

The name, despite being consistent with high-speed line naming conventions in the UK (HS1), also doesn't sell it's true purpose as a relief line. Perhaps if it was initially named the "West Coast Relief Link" and then later became known as HS2 similarly to how HS1 was originally called the Channel Tunnel Rail Link then it might've been an easier sell.

I agree - the not obvious benefits are a stumbling block for any large, expensive and disruptive project.

As for the name - yes calling it "High Speed Two" sounds a bit luxurious or optional, whereas "West Coast Relief Link" would have described it better AND also reminded many that it was necessary rather than just a nice to have.

 

[Topological]

I assume the plan is the full route as per HS2

Manchester to Manchester Airport IS HS2, then you have Curzon Street to Handsacre as "new line" and HS2, so really it is just linking the two ends and that means HS2. There seems little sense going for a different route.

All I can think is that it will be a watered down redevelopment of Crewe itself.

 

[The Planner]

If people are suggesting it doesn't go via Crewe, where is the connection to allow trains to Scotland? Full 2B to Golborne?

 

[Peter Sarf]

If people are suggesting it doesn't go via Crewe, where is the connection to allow trains to Scotland? Full 2B to Golborne?

Drop onto the WCML at the hopefully soon to be redundant Handsacre.
And then an excuse to extend NorthWest-wards from a new Piccadilly interchange through station (maybe not in my lifetime).

 

[Technologist]

At the House of Commons Transport Select Committee Oral Evidence on the Railways Bill on 7 January 2026, the Rail Minister Lord Hendy stated that the Government planned to keep the rail freight growth target of at least 75% by 2050. I do not see how they can deliver that without a substantial increase in the number of freight trains on the West Coast Main Line which they cannot deliver if they do not build HS2 to Crewe.

Autonomous electric trucks operating at night may well destroy rail freight. Or not….

I think this shows the problem with UK planning:

1: We move so slowly that short term objectives have long term time horizons
2: When we do have a long term plan it is not funded and is likely to be overtaken by events

In the short term freight isn't about to be washed away by autonomous in the long term it probably is, planning for this is pointless, building the capacity to do something about it is far more important.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2026 ==

As for the name - yes calling it "High Speed Two" sounds a bit luxurious or optional, whereas "West Coast Relief Link" would have described it better AND also reminded many that it was necessary rather than just a nice to have.

Or may be just "New Trunk Line"

You can call it whatever you want, the cackhanded execution was the issue.

 

[HSTEd]

If people are suggesting it doesn't go via Crewe, where is the connection to allow trains to Scotland? Full 2B to Golborne?

It seems likely that there would be a connection between the east west NPR line and the WCML Northbound.

You could try and use the Golborne HS2 alignment, but that is probably politically untenable. It's also about 23km, which leaves you without the same total length of high speed line as the Manchester via Crewe solution without Golborne, although each train spends more time on average on high speed lines and gets closer to its destination.

You could also attempt a solution threaded alongside the M6 through Eastern Warrington, and join the WCML south of Golborne instead of north of it. That allows you to share more length with the NPR line. Depending on the exact details of the NPR alignment that is about 15-16km.

Or tunnel from the approach to the south end of the approach embankment (~1400m from the canal) for the Latchford Railway viaduct to the north side of the M62 north of Warrington. That's about 7.3km, about 800m longer than the tunnel under Crewe proposed in the baseline solution.

Beyond its use to allow trains to head to Scotland, such a connection could route trains out of Piccadilly High Speed, via the Airport and access the WCML North without using Castlefield.

 

[The Planner]

Drop onto the WCML at the hopefully soon to be redundant Handsacre.
And then an excuse to extend NorthWest-wards from a new Piccadilly interchange through station (maybe not in my lifetime).

That then reduces the benefits massively and reduces WCML capacity, the exact thing you want to avoid. Dog legging through Manchester would probably have limited savings over today.

 

[weeklycommuter]

If people are suggesting it doesn't go via Crewe, where is the connection to allow trains to Scotland? Full 2B to Golborne?

There is no alternative to building a railway that continues HS2 both from London Euston/Old Oak Common/Birmingham Interchange and from Birmingham Curzon Street (which means completing all three sides of the Delta Junction) on the 2a route to Crewe.

More may need to be done North of Crewe both into Manchester and on the West Coast Main Line going North towards Scotland but there can be no additional capacity for passenger trains and freight trains from London and Birmingham to Scotland, North West England and North Wales without building a railway that continues HS2 on the 2a route to Crewe. HS2 has to join the West Coast Main Line at Crewe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2026 ==

The following Government Press Release today promising rail investment in the North of England includes the following statement about a new railway from Birmingham to Manchester. It does not promise to build anything but does include the statement "land already purchased between the West Midlands and Crewe will be retained". I do not know if this means they will renew all the 2a safeguarding that is due to expire in February 2026.

North West to benefit from multi-billion-pound rail investment

Major rail plans will unlock North West's economic potential, including a new rail route between Liverpool and Manchester and improved connections across the region.

www.gov.uk

Press release
North West to benefit from multi-billion-pound rail investment
Major rail plans will unlock North West's economic potential, including a new rail route between Liverpool and Manchester and improved connections across the region.
From: Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Heidi Alexander MP
Published 14 January 2026

• brand new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester unveiled, via new stations at Manchester Airport and Warrington Bank Quay Low Level
• part of new government vision for growth in the North to unlock the region’s economic potential and boost living standards – growing the productivity of 5 largest cities to the national average would add up to £40 billion a year to UK economy
• plans boost frequency and reliability of services across the North, as well as boosting job opportunities and generating thousands of new homes

To maximise NPR’s benefits and secure Britain’s future growth, the government is also setting out a long-term objective to see a full new north-south line from Birmingham to Manchester. This will ensure sufficient capacity and better connectivity on the West Coast Main Line, but it won’t be a revival of HS2 Phase 2. Instead, the government will launch a feasibility study, working with local partners on what will be delivered, when and to what specifications.
This will be an incremental programme, with improvements in the Northern growth corridor prioritised first and land already purchased between the West Midlands and Crewe will be retained in the meantime.
The government is working with mayors, other local leaders and businesses to announce a wider plan this spring for taking advantage of these strengths, firing up productivity and prosperity across the North.
 This plan brings in existing work to unlock immediate benefits for residents, including work to help fill local skills gaps across the country, and will build on this with further policies to improve connectivity, revitalise cities and towns, support people with the skills to access new opportunities and support businesses to innovate and grow.

 

[Topological]

I assume that maintaining the safeguarding is as far as they will get, especially given they are essentially building Conservative-proposed infrastructure.

It would be nice to think that the government was not going to let politics get in the way of doing good for the North, but it is a fear that the more people point out the origins of NPR, the more distant the government will become from what is needed.

 

[IRF]

I assume that maintaining the safeguarding is as far as they will get, especially given they are essentially building Conservative-proposed infrastructure.

It would be nice to think that the government was not going to let politics get in the way of doing good for the North, but it is a fear that the more people point out the origins of NPR, the more distant the government will become from what is needed.

The safeguarding would relate to HS2 Phase 2A, which was part of the project originally announced by the previous Labour government.

However, the powers due to lapse imminently allow them to compulsorily purchase land needed for the Phase 2A route. Today's announcement just says that they won't sell off land already acquired using those powers to date. It doesn't necessarily follow that they will retain the power to purchase further land along the route past next month. (Does anyone know what proportion of the necessary land for 2A has already been bought?)

 

[SynthD]

If a Birmingham-Manchester line is decades away, the announcement surely means nothing. Any subsequent government can just cancel it with essentially zero cost like they did with 2a and 2b.

But that is true of any project that takes several years to go from announcement to .. some final point that people don't even agree on. We don’t operate the country on that level of pessimism, only forums.

I assume that maintaining the safeguarding is as far as they will get, especially given they are essentially building Conservative-proposed infrastructure.

It would be nice to think that the government was not going to let politics get in the way of doing good for the North, but it is a fear that the more people point out the origins of NPR, the more distant the government will become from what is needed.

Is it though? It's a good idea that came up during those years and, despite being used as a toy, survived. Things happen slowly because of cost, and it's self serving politicians who mess with our idea of speed (ie promising now with a focus on what this announcement should credit this person, or slowing it down to spend less right now), but not cancelling infrastructure because the other side personally thought it up.

 

[IRF]

In any case, the Phase 2A route (which is the subject of the soon-to-expire compulsory purchase powers) was originally devised under the last Labour government, so why would this Labour government cancel it out of spite?

 

[Topological]

But that is true of any project that takes several years to go from announcement to .. some final point that people don't even agree on. We don’t operate the country on that level of pessimism, only forums.

Is it though? It's a good idea that came up during those years and, despite being used as a toy, survived. Things happen slowly because of cost, and it's self serving politicians who mess with our idea of speed (ie promising now with a focus on what this announcement should credit this person, or slowing it down to spend less right now), but not cancelling infrastructure because the other side personally thought it up.

We will see.

Today's papers are naturally aligning with their own bias. Some painting this as a new commitment to an underinvested North, while others acknowledge that this is simply an extension of a good idea to secure growth outside the M25 now packaged into a too slow timeline.

Labour just need to tell us that their brilliant handling of the post-inflation bubble economy, and tough choices on tax, enable them to deliver the investment. (All rubbish, but who cares what spin gets put on it).

I just want to see the lines built.

(And yes, like George Osborne's mates, I have interest in Manchester properties increasing in value)

 

[CdBrux]

Any subsequent government could cancel it but Rishi Sunak's cancellation was followed nine months later by the worst general election defeat in the history of the Conservative Party. There were many reasons for that defeat but Rishi Sunak's assumption that cancelling HS2 to Manchester would be popular and help to rescue the Conservative Party proved to be false and this does not encourage any politician in future to think that they can win votes by cancelling or promising to cancel a Birmingham-Manchester railway.

a statement which is wholly opinion and probably totally unprovable!

 

[NCT]

In any case, the Phase 2A route (which is the subject of the soon-to-expire compulsory purchase powers) was originally devised under the last Labour government, so why would this Labour government cancel it out of spite?

This puzzles me too.

 

[joieman]

Or may be just "New Trunk Line"

That's pretty much exactly the meaning of the Japanese name Shinkansen (new main line).

 

[HSTEd]

There is no alternative to building a railway that continues HS2 both from London Euston/Old Oak Common/Birmingham Interchange and from Birmingham Curzon Street (which means completing all three sides of the Delta Junction) on the 2a route to Crewe.

More may need to be done North of Crewe both into Manchester and on the West Coast Main Line going North towards Scotland but there can be no additional capacity for passenger trains and freight trains from London and Birmingham to Scotland, North West England and North Wales without building a railway that continues HS2 on the 2a route to Crewe. HS2 has to join the West Coast Main Line at Crewe.

There are any number of schemes that can provide an additional capacity that aren't "just build Phase 2A exactly as HS2 want".

My view is that this sort of "my way or the highway" thinking is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

We are probably 10-15 years from this Birmingham to Manchester line even starting construction, at the earliest.

 

[MarkyT]

There are any number of schemes that can provide an additional capacity that aren't "just build Phase 2A exactly as HS2 want".

My view is that this sort of "my way or the highway" thinking is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

We are probably 10-15 years from this Birmingham to Manchester line even starting construction, at the earliest.

Restarting the whole scheme definition, planning, and design process again from first principles could lead to years of study and option selection from the essentially infinite number of possibilities. No wonder it will take that long. I've always had my reservations about Handsacre. It was the fact that in the complete final scheme there would only be a handful of extra trains using it to access the WCML that made it viable in my view.

A pragmatic way forward might be to assume plain line sections at least as far Crewe would be designed as per Ph. 2A development work already underway at time of truncation, with a reevaluation of locations and configurations of junctions, with both NPR and WCML, carried out in parallel. It seems incredibly shortsighted to assert that not a sod of earth beyond Handsacre can possibly be turned until the entire NPR network is complete and operational further north.

 

[SynthD]

My view is that this sort of "my way or the highway" thinking is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

That seems unnecessarily oppositional to the experts. Deviations from the original plan aren’t being made based on new information, but by political choices on spending money less efficiently. Fine, that’s politics, but I don’t know why people here defend it.

 

[HSTEd]

Restarting the whole scheme definition, planning, and design process again from first principles could lead to years of study and option selection from the essentially infinite number of possibilities. No wonder it will take that long. I've always had my reservations about Handsacre. It was the fact that in the complete final scheme there would only be a handful of extra trains using it to access the WCML that made it viable in my view.

To me, it seems Handsacre was indeed a terrible place to end Phase 1. If they were going that far north they should have integrated the line into a grade seeperated Colwich junction. If they didn't want to do that there seems to be little point taking the Birmingham bypass line that far north.

But we are where we are now.

A pragmatic way forward might be to assume plain line sections at least as far Crewe would be designed as per Ph. 2A development work already underway at time of truncation, with a reevaluation of locations and configurations of junctions, with both NPR and WCML, carried out in parallel.

One problem with this is obviously that the lines you connect to will definitely have an effect on the route geometry.
After all, at 320kph or 360kph trains cant radically change directions in short distances.

I think restraining the route like that is just going to produce exactly the junctions selected before, because they did impact the rest of the route by their presence.

It seems incredibly shortsighted to assert that not a sod of earth beyond Handsacre can possibly be turned until the entire NPR network is complete and operational further north.

Fundamentally I think we have a credibility problem.

It's been over a decade since HS3/NPR was moored and the project has barely gone anywhere. There doesn't even seem to be a serious design.

The impression a large portion of the population gets is it was only ever proposed as a sop to get what the government/industry actually wanted: HS2.

I think that in order to get a line from Manchester to Birmingham we are going to have to do NPR. Otherwise it will be very hard to avoid the accusations that NPR will just get soft cancelled or deacoped to nothing once HS2 phase 2 is in the bag.

Given that, there seems little reason not to just spend the time reoptimising the north south line for a world in which there is no HS2 East leg and where NPR apparently exists.

 

[anthony263]

Should really get hs2 to crewe then worry about the new section north to Manchester

 

[Trainbike46]

To me, it seems Handsacre was indeed a terrible place to end Phase 1. If they were going that far north they should have integrated the line into a grade seeperated Colwich junction. If they didn't want to do that there seems to be little point taking the Birmingham bypass line that far north.

But we are where we are now.


One problem with this is obviously that the lines you connect to will definitely have an effect on the route geometry.
After all, at 320kph or 360kph trains cant radically change directions in short distances.

I think restraining the route like that is just going to produce exactly the junctions selected before, because they did impact the rest of the route by their presence.

Fundamentally I think we have a credibility problem.

It's been over a decade since HS3/NPR was moored and the project has barely gone anywhere. There doesn't even seem to be a serious design.

I think you are right that HS3 NPR hasn't gone anywhere, but that is in itself a political failure in my view. No serious design exists, because design work was not started.

I think that in order to get a line from Manchester to Birmingham we are going to have to do NPR. Otherwise it will be very hard to avoid the accusations that NPR will just get soft cancelled or deacoped to nothing once HS2 phase 2 is in the bag.

The problem with this analysis is that NPR has already been in a "soft-cancelled" state basically since it was proposed, and the recent announcements haven't changed that. Making a Birmingham-Manchester line dependent on NPR doesn't make NPR more likely to happen, it only makes the Birmingham-Manchester line less likely.

Given that, there seems little reason not to just spend the time reoptimising the north south line for a world in which there is no HS2 East leg and where NPR apparently exists.

I could see that argument for dumping phase 2b and starting again for that section, but not for phase 2a.

 

[cle]

God forbid we revive or relaunch something with the same name, aims or nomenclature.

But if this is just restarting HS2 but from Manchester down - with some northern sop sprinkles for Andy - fine. But really it needs to get to Crewe after the Airport/Warrington/Fiddlers piece.

Crewe is such a logical place to hub, tons of room, long platforms and many connections. Handsacre-Crewe then becomes the critical infill which gets a fair amount of the WCML capacity separated out. Until then, we're still juggling Colwich, Stockport etc etc.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Once the London to Birmingham section of HS2 opens, then the pressure to extend it northwards will massively grow.

The nature of large transport projects is that while they are unpopular with some when being built, they quickly become part of the norm. Nobody in London questions the Elizabeth Line or Jubilee Line extension now, while HS1 has quickly become an essential part of the transport infrastructure.

This is exactly what I am hoping for. Once built, most will question how did we manage without it!