Restarting HS2a

[AlexSJW]

The whole of HS2 is viewed to eventually cost one billion per mile. I was amazed it went ahead and that Sunak never binned the lot.

As soon as the green tunnels came into the planning, it should have been binned. Also when NPR was adopted as a real idea, it should have been binned. The 'Y' design was bad, pure bad, going through the most expensive part of London. NPR was not even thought of when it was designed. If they had a remit to design HS2 and NPR as one, we would have had a winner, with public support.

HS2 failed because it was:

• too centralised,
• too isolated,
• too politically brittle,
• and designed without NPR in mind.

A single integrated HS2 and NPR remit, starting with:

• Pennines HSR base tunnel,
• ECML upgrade, using ECML as the spine,
• Fast Midlands connectivity to ECML,
• HS1 integration.

It would almost certainly still be alive - and probably being built quietly with sections operational right now, without culture-war levels of opposition.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You keep claiming that reducing the spec from 400kmh to 300kmh will somehow massively reduce costs but you have presented zero evidence for this.

Do you really think the smaller earthworks required for 300km/h wouldn’t be cheaper? And the fewer mitigations due to train noise etc.

 

[Krokodil]

Do you really think the smaller earthworks required for 300km/h wouldn’t be cheaper? And the fewer mitigations due to train noise etc.

A little cheaper, maybe. "Massively"? I think not.

 

[Noddy]

Do you really think the smaller earthworks required for 300km/h wouldn’t be cheaper? And the fewer mitigations due to train noise etc.

The large earthworks are explicitly there to reduce visual and acoustic impact during both the construction and operational phases of HS2. They are viewed as necessary to placate locals and hostile councils (eg Buckingham CC) who have activity tried to oppose, prevent and delay HS2 at every stage. That happens on every large new build infrastructure project in this country which is one of number of reason why new infrastructure is very expensive to build. Even if you reduce the speed you still have to build the acoustic and visual impact mitigation earthworks for both the construction and operational phases because the locals and hostile councils are still there and that is what policy dictates now.

We could as a country decide that these mitigation measures and policy aren’t required. That would mean we could make the earthworks smaller without reducing the speed. However, it would still cost broadly the same, because the cost of the earthworks alone is not one of the fundamental reasons it costs so much build infrastructure in this country. Smaller earthworks may reduce the cost slightly but not significantly.

The whole of HS2 is viewed to eventually cost one billion per mile.

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

[MatthewHutton]

because the cost of the earthworks alone is not one of the fundamental reasons it costs so much build infrastructure in this country

What is the reason then? Bearing in mind historically we haven’t been particularly high.

Even if you reduce the speed you still have to build the acoustic and visual impact mitigation because the locals and hostile councils are still there and that is what policy dictates now.

Noise levels are higher at higher speeds. And the Japanese have stricter noise rules without costs being as excessive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==

They are viewed as necessary to placate locals and hostile councils (eg Buckingham CC) who have activity tried to oppose, prevent and delay HS2 at every stage

Part of the issue there is the lack of intermediate stations. Fortunately with phase 2 you can add intermediate stations basically at will without impacting service levels. Certainly an M6/Stoke and an A38 station could both be done to help reduce local hostility and without significant service impact.

 

[Noddy]

What is the reason then? Bearing in mind historically we haven’t been particularly high.

The Institution of Civil Engineers identify four root causes:

1. A lack of clear strategic direction​

Many factors are important, but the role of government in setting clear strategic direction is “foundational”.

The lack of stable policy making has been a particular problem under recent governments.

It means there’s no long-term strategy, pipeline or funding commitments for infrastructure projects.

The supply chain needs that certainty to have the confidence to invest in skills and materials.

And other opportunities to drive down costs are missed. These include the benefits of a more programmatic pipeline, which would enable repeatability, standardisation and lower unit costs.

2. Challenges with project clients and sponsors​

In the public sector, project sponsors (usually a government department) set the overall budget range and objectives for projects.

A sponsor should let the client deliver the project while providing an appropriate level of oversight.

There are many examples where this has worked well – such as National Grid’s London Power Tunnels project.

But there are often problems that impact delivery in the public sector, including:

• overlapping roles where sponsoring departments become too involved in delivery
• not recruiting people with expertise in delivering complex projects
• not ensuring rigorous early-stage design to explore options and trade-offs
• procurement and not knowing how to secure effective prices, package contracts and allocate risk

3. Inefficient consenting and compliance​

Public consent for new infrastructure is key in a democracy.

But the UK’s current planning system is too complex. It’s causing delays and cost rises without improving outcomes.

A key problem has been uncertainty about what the government’s infrastructure priorities are and how projects should manage trade-offs between national needs and local impacts.

It means developers tend to be too risk averse to get planning approval. Excessive design changes are made to reduce opposition or the risk of legal challenge.

The NIC has previously made recommendations for speeding up planning – which the previous and current governments have begun implementing.

There also needs to be more clarity on the standards projects need to comply with.

Regulation is important for protecting workers, the public and the environment. But standards that change too quickly, are unclear or are too cautious push up costs.

4. A constrained supply chain​

Construction sector productivity has flatlined since the 2008 global financial crisis.

The UK isn't alone in having a long-term construction productivity challenge.

But it does have a highly fragmented industry. Large firms rely on many smaller subcontractors to deliver projects. This creates inefficiencies

The government needs to provide long-term certainty and a favourable investment environment.

Then the sector must invest in skills, innovation and capacity building.



Reducing the specification from 400kmh to 300kmh doesn’t address any of these points, and in fact ‘Excessive design changes are made to reduce opposition’ is identified as a contributing factor to cost rises in point 3.

 

[JonathanH]

Part of the issue there is the lack of intermediate stations.

It isn't. New stations, particularly out of town ones encourage more traffic and further development, which people living in rural locations do not want.

Fortunately with phase 2 you can add intermediate stations basically at will without impacting service levels. Certainly an M6/Stoke and an A38 station could both be done to help reduce local hostility and without significant service impact.

Not in my opinion. Again it encourages road traffic, and doesn't do anything to improve the sustainability of the existing centres.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It isn't. New stations, particularly out of town ones encourage more traffic and further development, which people living in rural locations do not want

So why has every other high speed rail project done more stops?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==

Reducing the specification from 400kmh to 300kmh doesn’t address any of these points, and in fact ‘Excessive design changes are made to reduce opposition’ is identified as a contributing factor to cost rises in point 3.

Sounds like the best path is to anticipate the likely objections at the beginning and to mitigate them in the initial plans.

EDIT: Also maybe the Insitute of Civil Engineers is wrong? Because there’s definitely a fifth cause which is overengineering. You see that with the 400km/h design speeds for HS2 and the 150mph roads etc etc. I mean the M40 extension and other 1980s roads clearly have a 100mph design speed, and yet newer roads have much gentler curves etc.

 

[Noddy]

The Institution of Civil Engineers identify four root causes:

1. A lack of clear strategic direction​

Many factors are important, but the role of government in setting clear strategic direction is “foundational”.

The lack of stable policy making has been a particular problem under recent governments.

It means there’s no long-term strategy, pipeline or funding commitments for infrastructure projects.

The supply chain needs that certainty to have the confidence to invest in skills and materials.

And other opportunities to drive down costs are missed. These include the benefits of a more programmatic pipeline, which would enable repeatability, standardisation and lower unit costs.

2. Challenges with project clients and sponsors​

In the public sector, project sponsors (usually a government department) set the overall budget range and objectives for projects.

A sponsor should let the client deliver the project while providing an appropriate level of oversight.

There are many examples where this has worked well – such as National Grid’s London Power Tunnels project.

But there are often problems that impact delivery in the public sector, including:

• overlapping roles where sponsoring departments become too involved in delivery
• not recruiting people with expertise in delivering complex projects
• not ensuring rigorous early-stage design to explore options and trade-offs
• procurement and not knowing how to secure effective prices, package contracts and allocate risk

3. Inefficient consenting and compliance​

Public consent for new infrastructure is key in a democracy.

But the UK’s current planning system is too complex. It’s causing delays and cost rises without improving outcomes.

A key problem has been uncertainty about what the government’s infrastructure priorities are and how projects should manage trade-offs between national needs and local impacts.

It means developers tend to be too risk averse to get planning approval. Excessive design changes are made to reduce opposition or the risk of legal challenge.

The NIC has previously made recommendations for speeding up planning – which the previous and current governments have begun implementing.

There also needs to be more clarity on the standards projects need to comply with.

Regulation is important for protecting workers, the public and the environment. But standards that change too quickly, are unclear or are too cautious push up costs.

4. A constrained supply chain​

Construction sector productivity has flatlined since the 2008 global financial crisis.

The UK isn't alone in having a long-term construction productivity challenge.

But it does have a highly fragmented industry. Large firms rely on many smaller subcontractors to deliver projects. This creates inefficiencies

The government needs to provide long-term certainty and a favourable investment environment.

Then the sector must invest in skills, innovation and capacity building.



Reducing the specification from 400kmh to 300kmh doesn’t address any of these points, and in fact ‘Excessive design changes are made to reduce opposition’ is identified as a contributing factor to cost rises in point 3.

Sounds like the best path is to anticipate the likely objections at the beginning and to mitigate them in the initial plans.

EDIT: Also maybe the Insitute of Civil Engineers is wrong? Because there’s definitely a fifth cause which is overengineering. You see that with the 400km/h design speeds for HS2 and the 150mph roads etc etc. I mean the M40 extension and other 1980s roads clearly have a 100mph design speed, and yet newer roads have much gentler curves etc.

Once again, reducing the design speed (at any of stage of the project) would not address any of the fundamental issues identified by ICE. Maybe they are wrong but I believe experts using evidence and reason over internet forum members using opinion and conjecture on any day of the week.

 

[AndrewE]

So why has every other high speed rail project done more stops?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==

bigger countries with lower population densities (thinking of France, Spain.)

Sounds like the best path is to anticipate the likely objections at the beginning and to mitigate them in the initial plans.

EDIT: Also maybe the Insitute of Civil Engineers is wrong? Because there’s definitely a fifth cause which is overengineering. You see that with the 400km/h design speeds for HS2 and the 150mph roads etc etc. I mean the M40 extension and other 1980s roads clearly have a 100mph design speed,

Interesting theory - can you back it up or explain the obvious?

and yet newer roads have much gentler curves etc.

Maybe you mean sharper curves, if the 1980s roads were built for higher speeds...

 

[Krokodil]

How do other individual HSR projects compare in terms of scale? How much concrete would they have gone through, considering that many of them were able to revert to existing routes for the final run into the city centres. Being the "biggest project in Europe" or whatever the claim was will have made it difficult for the supply chain to keep up.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Interesting theory - can you back it up or explain the obvious?

If you drive the M40 which has no fixed speed cameras and which I have driven on numerous times there are people who go significantly in excess of the speed limit the whole way. There are no corners which those people (or anyone else) slows down for. Nor is there signage warning about any corners that there would be if there were repeated accidents.

bigger countries with lower population densities (thinking of France, Spain.)

I mean actually the countries with higher population densities like Germany, Japan and Taiwan typically have more intermediate stops than France and Spain.

How do other individual HSR projects compare in terms of scale? How much concrete would they have gone through, considering that many of them were able to revert to existing routes for the final run into the city centres. Being the "biggest project in Europe" or whatever the claim was will have made it difficult for the supply chain to keep up.

Again this thread is about HS2 phase 2a, that is much more similar in terms of not having new urban approaches compared to other high speed projects in Europe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==

Once again, reducing the design speed (at any of stage of the project) would not address any of the fundamental issues identified by ICE. Maybe they are wrong but I believe experts using evidence and reason over internet forum members using opinion and conjecture on any day of the week.

Are you really arguing that a simpler design that follows the landscape more closely wouldn't reduce costs? Because that seems pretty obvious...

 

[Krokodil]

Again this thread is about HS2 phase 2a, that is much more similar in terms of not having new urban approaches compared to other high speed projects in Europe.

Yes but the political situation Phase 2A is in is largely down to the cost of Phase 1. That's what has put the rest in jeopardy.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Yes but the political situation Phase 2A is in is largely down to the cost of Phase 1. That's what has put the rest in jeopardy.

I really find it difficult to believe phase 2a would have been cancelled by the politicians if it had cost say £5bn, which would still be probably 4x more expensive than a similar project would be in a cheap country like Belgium.

Especially when the bottom half or bottom 3/4s has all the value, so even that alone would be worth doing for £5bn.

And I mean at 4x Belgian costs say I think you could do a link to the 125mph line through Burton on Trent and a TGV style line along the A38 north of Derby without spending a ridiculous amount - its difficult to believe the politicians wouldn't have gone for that if it was possible.

 

[Trainbike46]

I really find it difficult to believe phase 2a would have been cancelled by the politicians if it had cost say £5bn, which would still be probably 4x more expensive than a similar project would be in a cheap country like Belgium.

Especially when the bottom half or bottom 3/4s has all the value, so even that alone would be worth doing for £5bn.

And I mean at 4x Belgian costs say I think you could do a link to the 125mph line through Burton on Trent and a TGV style line along the A38 north of Derby without spending a ridiculous amount - its difficult to believe the politicians wouldn't have gone for that if it was possible.

You're saying all this as if the budget for phase 2a was much higher than £5 billion, but the cost range was £5-7 billion in 2019 prices....

 

[MatthewHutton]

You're saying all this as if the budget for phase 2a was much higher than £5 billion, but the cost range was £5-7 billion in 2019 prices....

I mean that is much higher than £5 billion in today's money.

£7 billion in 2019 is £9 billion today, and construction prices have risen everywhere by more than that if you look at the transit costs project. So if you add another 20% on top that is approaching £11bn.

 

[Noddy]

Are you really arguing that a simpler design that follows the landscape more closely wouldn't reduce costs? Because that seems pretty obvious...

Yes. It would not change the overall price significantly. It is not why HS2 (or other major infrastructure projects) is so expensive. Are you arguing that redesigning the project to incorporate slower speeds and more stations would reduce costs? Because changing the overall strategic objectives of a project and undertaking late redesigns is the exact opposite of what ICE say we need to do to reduce to high infrastructure costs. They are right.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Yes. It would not change the overall price significantly. It is not why HS2 (or other major infrastructure projects) is so expensive. Are you arguing that redesigning the project to incorporate slower speeds and more stations would reduce costs? Because changing the overall strategic objectives of a project and undertaking late redesigns is the exact opposite of what ICE say we need to do to reduce to high infrastructure costs. They are right.

Well you could add the additional stops up front in the design phase. Its pretty obvious where you could put them.

And again all it would be is matching our peers. The people who did the designs should have gone to our peers and looked at what they did carefully to avoid making late changes.

 

[Trainbike46]

I mean that is much higher than £5 billion in today's money.

£7 billion in 2019 is £9 billion today, and construction prices have risen everywhere by more than that if you look at the transit costs project. So if you add another 20% on top that is approaching £11bn.

This is the problem with taking about HS2 - everyone makes up their own assumptions for what would have happened to costs had different decisions been taken, but doesn't bother saying what it is they are assuming.

That's how you end up with people up thread claiming HS2 costs £1 billion per mile (it doesn't, not by any count).

There's nothing wrong with making assumptions every now and then, but discussion is a lot clearer if you state what you're assuming and why (e.g. including what you think the cost of phase 2a was at the time of cancellation).

I do think your £11 billion assumption is too high, but I do see how you come to that conclusion

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==

Are you really arguing that a simpler design that follows the landscape more closely wouldn't reduce costs? Because that seems pretty obvious...

It's important to remember that every redesign costs money, so the cost savings have to be big to make them worth the costs of doing a redesign.

The main way in which a higher speed increases costs is the constraints it puts on route choice - but now that so much land has been bought you can't make any savings there anymore. It's effectively too late for a lower speed to reduce costs for phase 2a

 

[Noddy]

Well you could add the additional stops up front in the design phase. Its pretty obvious where you could put them.

We are not at the design phase now and haven’t been for years.

 

[MatthewHutton]

We are not at the design phase now and haven’t been for years.

And the design stage was clearly very poorly done.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==

This is the problem with taking about HS2 - everyone makes up their own assumptions for what would have happened to costs had different decisions been taken, but doesn't bother saying what it is they are assuming.

That's how you end up with people up thread claiming HS2 costs £1 billion per mile (it doesn't, not by any count).

There's nothing wrong with making assumptions every now and then, but discussion is a lot clearer if you state what you're assuming and why (e.g. including what you think the cost of phase 2a was at the time of cancellation).

I do think your £11 billion assumption is too high, but I do see how you come to that conclusion

The thing is it is only about 6km from the HS2 route to Norton Bridge. So even with some additional complexities there and even higher costs for that 6km you'd be looking at at worst maybe 60% of total costs to do a Norton Bridge ending solution or 75% to Baldwins Gate where the HS2 route is right on top of the West Coast Mainline anyway.

So if the total was, say, £10bn today then you'd be looking at £6bn to Norton Bridge or £7.5bn to Baldwins Gate - its difficult to say that the latter wouldn't be acceptable if £7bn was acceptable for the whole thing in 2019.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==

It's important to remember that every redesign costs money, so the cost savings have to be big to make them worth the costs of doing a redesign.

The main way in which a higher speed increases costs is the constraints it puts on route choice - but now that so much land has been bought you can't make any savings there anymore. It's effectively too late for a lower speed to reduce costs for phase 2a

Fair point.

 

[Noddy]

And the design stage was clearly very poorly done.

Which is identified by the ICE (in their points 1, 2 and 3) as factors why these major projects cost so much.

 

[AlexSJW]

The thing is it is only about 6km from the HS2 route to Norton Bridge. So even with some additional complexities there and even higher costs for that 6km you'd be looking at at worst maybe 60% of total costs to do a Norton Bridge ending solution or 75% to Baldwins Gate where the HS2 route is right on top of the West Coast Mainline anyway.

But this will take Manchester trains only to Crewe, which is far from ideal and more expense. Using a part of the Colwich-Stone line Manchester trains are off the WCML entirely, releasing capacity. Also, taking Manchester trains via Stone, neglected Stoke is served. A double whammy of plusses.

 

[Krokodil]

I really find it difficult to believe phase 2a would have been cancelled by the politicians if...

You reckon that there was any kind of logic or science to it?

Sunak's decision was an entirely political one. No expert was consulted about it, after Uxbridge he just reckoned that he could get some quick votes by cancelling the remainder of the scheme and announcing a random set of reopenings in marginal constituencies that hadn't been thought through at all. Probably eith Gilligan whispering in his ear.

Not forgetting boasting about spending capital funds for rail in the North on road maintenance in London, under a tag line of "Network North".

 

[Manutd1999]

View attachment 197569
It uses roughly one third of the HS2 Phase 2a high speed alignment from Streethay Junction to a point near Moreton Farm. From this point an additional 5km of high speed alignment is built to join the WCML Stone line via a flat junction near the site of the former level crossing at Hixon, approximately 15km from Streethay Junction. This option requires the construction of three junctions at Hixon, Sandon and Norton Bridge.

I have previosuly advocated for this option as the best-value add-on to Phase 1. If you think about the incremental return on investment once Phase 1 is already built, it makes a lot of sense:

1. Handsacre Jn "buys" you ~6 extra paths south of Lichfield, but nothing further north, and gives significant journey times for long-distance services to Manchester/Liverpool.
2. Extending to Hixon frees 2x paths between Lichfield and Crewe, plus gives the option of better utilising Curzon St by running Birmingham-Manchester trains via HS2.
3. Further extending to Norton Bridge and bypassing Stafford frees an extra ~3 paths to Crewe, although capacity north of there is probably still limited.

Building the full Phase 2a gives no additonal benefits compared to #2 and #3, except some minor journey time enhancements, so it's quite hard to justify.

You could even split Phase 2 into 2A, 2B + 2C, with the 3x steps outline above. Each phase would have it's own business case, based on the incremental return on investment. Making the programme a bit more modular should also help with cost control. It's a bit of a no-brainer IMO....

 

[AlexSJW]

I have previosuly advocated for this option as the best-value add-on to Phase 1. If you think about the incremental return on investment once Phase 1 is already built, it makes a lot of sense:

1. Handsacre Jn "buys" you ~6 extra paths south of Lichfield, but nothing further north, and gives significant journey times for long-distance services to Manchester/Liverpool.
2. Extending to Hixon frees 2x paths between Lichfield and Crewe, plus gives the option of better utilising Curzon St by running Birmingham-Manchester trains via HS2.
3. Further extending to Norton Bridge and bypassing Stafford frees an extra ~3 paths to Crewe, although capacity north of there is probably still limited.

Building the full Phase 2a gives no additonal benefits compared to #2 and #3, except some minor journey time enhancements, so it's quite hard to justify.

You could even split Phase 2 into 2A, 2B + 2C, with the 3x steps outline above. Each phase would have it's own business case, based on the incremental return on investment. Making the programme a bit more modular should also help with cost control. It's a bit of a no-brainer IMO....

Good post Manutd. The key is divide and rule. Send Manchester trains via upgraded Stone/Stoke line and Liverpool, Lancs, Edinburgh and Glasgow trains via Crewe. Manchester trains are then off the WCML entirely releasing capacity.

▪️ The two HS2 junctions at WCML/Handsacre and Fradley to Handsacre can be removed from planning saving money.
▪️ HS2 can extend from Fradley and run onto the Colwich-stone line at Hixon. Not branch in but seamlessly run into.
▪️ Remove the track down to Colwich also removing the WCML Colwich junction entirely.
▪️ From Hixon to Sandon, where a grade separated branch, the Manchester trains diverge.
▪️ Then over to the WCML north of Norton Bridge in another grade separated junction.

From Fradley to Norton Bridge using only two fast and safe grade separated junctions. With four junctions removed. It is a cheap solution that offers so much.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

But this will take Manchester trains only to Crewe, which is far from ideal and more expense. Using a part of the Colwich-Stone line Manchester trains are off the WCML entirely, releasing capacity. Also, taking Manchester trains via Stone, neglected Stoke is served. A double whammy of plusses.

Positive for Stoke Vs Negative for Crewe.

Stoke would only serve it's local population.
Crewe serves a vast area as a well used transport hub.

If the Manchester trains don't stop there, then the Stoke route would be shorter and quicker.
If they are to stop, then Crewe would be far better.

 

[Peter Sarf]

What is the reason then? Bearing in mind historically we haven’t been particularly high.

Noise levels are higher at higher speeds. And the Japanese have stricter noise rules without costs being as excessive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2026 ==


Part of the issue there is the lack of intermediate stations. Fortunately with phase 2 you can add intermediate stations basically at will without impacting service levels. Certainly an M6/Stoke and an A38 station could both be done to help reduce local hostility and without significant service impact.

I do not agree with lots of intermediate stops. The purpose of HS2 is to get the long distance limited stop services onto a separate route so the overcrowded West Coast Mainline can be used for the slower (not just slowest) services. It is why HS2 Phase 1 went the way it did - to avoid large population centres.

We should be looking at competing with the airlines - they run non stop from A to B not via a few other places !.
Rail can improve its chances if stations are fairly central but don't want to undo that with lots of intermediate stations.

Well you could add the additional stops up front in the design phase. Its pretty obvious where you could put them.

And again all it would be is matching our peers. The people who did the designs should have gone to our peers and looked at what they did carefully to avoid making late changes.

That is design change to HS2 Phase 2a that you are suggesting now. Furthermore I think intermediate stops were left out as a correct decision in the first place.

A line is a lot simpler if all the trains are going non stop or at the same stopping pattern. Other wise you might as well carry on tinkering with the West Coast Mainline. Also how much are these intermediate stations going to cost ?.

I am tempted by a re-hash of HS2 Phase 2a. But then I have to ponder why the current design was arrived at.

If you stand back from all the arguments people are making some things are clear
There is not one simple overriding solution. There are too many similarly beneficial choices and so changes of mind are easy to arrive at and so have to be controlled - they haven't.
A project that takes as long as HS2 takes (due to its size) leaves more time for changes of mind on what is the ideal solution.
Get on with it.
Where is the money - oops.

 

[AlexSJW]

If the Manchester trains don't stop there, then the Stoke route would be shorter and quicker.

I am sure most will run right through Stoke. No need to clog the WCML when there are two corridors north.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You reckon that there was any kind of logic or science to it?

Sunak's decision was an entirely political one. No expert was consulted about it, after Uxbridge he just reckoned that he could get some quick votes by cancelling the remainder of the scheme and announcing a random set of reopenings in marginal constituencies that hadn't been thought through at all. Probably eith Gilligan whispering in his ear.

Not forgetting boasting about spending capital funds for rail in the North on road maintenance in London, under a tag line of "Network North".

There are only votes in cancelling it because the costs are insane. If the costs weren’t insane then the vote winner would be to keep it because it looks like you are penalising the north.

And it’s not just Sunaks judgement. Haig/Starmer/Alexander made the same call and Burnham couldn’t get it un cancelled.

We should be looking at competing with the airlines - they run non stop from A to B not via a few other places !.
Rail can improve its chances if stations are fairly central but don't want to undo that with lots of intermediate stations

The only trip that even slightly matters for is London - Glasgow, in all other cases the train is a lot quicker.

Plus the status quo is really slow for e.g. Thames Valley to Scotland passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2026 ==

I do not agree with lots of intermediate stops

And yet ever since other high speed rail service in the world does them. And the older homeowners along the route are well travelled enough to know this, and to object more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2026 ==

Stoke would only serve it's local population.
Crewe serves a vast area as a well used transport hub

Stoke on Trent and Crewe have basically the same total passenger numbers today. If anything there’s more room for growth at Stoke as it is a larger place.