Restarting HS2a

[FGWHST43009]

People sometimes travel to Edinburgh via Avanti as it can be cheaper, or to avoid disruption or engineering works on the ECML as well.

The fastest london-Edinburgh trains are 4h20m at present, with only 2 stops, so with phase 2a the route via HS2 would be competitive. Given the demand between London-Edinburgh is likely bigger than currently catered for, offering the HS2 route will make sense.

However, there should obviously be direct HS2 trains to Edinburgh if phase 2A gets built. The proposal of 2tph London-Carlisle 400m trains that split there, with one half heading to Glasgow and the second half heading to Edinburgh is a good use of limited paths north, and improves the london service for both Edinburgh and Glasgow.

London-Edinburgh is down to 4:06, most trains are timetabled for 4:10 or less. Only stopping at Old Oak Common, Preston and splitting at Carlisle then Haymarket with phase 2A should have it down to under 4 hours. Second train would stop additionally at Crewe, Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster. I think the original plan was for 2tph limited-stop to Carlisle, with one stopping at Birmingham Interchange then both only calling at Preston and Carlisle then splitting, with an additional Lancaster service calling at Crewe, Warrington and Wigan as well as Preston. Don't know if that was with phase 2A or after the Golborne Link was completed

 

[Nottingham59]

If you optimised the system instead of wasting money on a branch to Liverpool you’d just stay on the same train.

Yes, of course you would, but I don't know what the time penalty is for a non-tilt train from Crewe to Edinburgh.

And you would cut out intermediate stops, if you could get the paths. If DfT were serious about modal shift from plane to rail, then from the day that Handacre opens, they would run 400m long trains from Old Oak Common through to Waverley at Lumo prices.

 

[Noddy]

Liverpool is important and should be served by HS2 - but it has consistently been included in all HS2 plans, with trains running on HS2 London-Crewe, and then serving both Runcorn and Lime street on the existing network. As someone who regularly travels Liverpool-London (and occasionally Chester-London), I don't understand where this suggestion that Liverpool is being treated unfairly comes from. Remember, when the proposals for 2tph HS2 services to Liverpool were made, Liverpool only had 1tph to london at all.

However, there should obviously be direct HS2 trains to Edinburgh if phase 2A gets built. The proposal of 2tph London-Carlisle 400m trains that split there, with one half heading to Glasgow and the second half heading to Edinburgh is a good use of limited paths north, and improves the london service for both Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Oh I’m not saying Liverpool shouldn’t be served by HS2 at all. Of course it should and it will be. I’m just pointing out that Liverpool isn’t the biggest market or even the second biggest market as you head north westwards from the midlands and if there is future development of HS2/spare money it would be much better spent on other markets as opposed to a high speed branch to Liverpool Lime Street which another user has repeatedly claimed is how HS2 should have been designed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

London-Edinburgh is down to 4:06, most trains are timetabled for 4:10 or less.

Looking at today’s timetable the train on the half hour is typically 4.06-4.10, but the train on the hour is typically 4.30.

Obviously there are many factors at play (ticket prices, onward journey, etc) but HS2 Phase 2a would be in the same ballpark as the ECML journey times wise, and Phase 2b and/or other incremental improvements north of Crewe would likely reduce further to overtake the ECML.

 

[MatthewHutton]

And you would cut out intermediate stops, if you could get the paths. If DfT were serious about modal shift from plane to rail, then from the day that Handacre opens, they would run 400m long trains from Old Oak Common through to Waverley at Lumo prices.

An hourly sixteen car train has 10 million seats a year on it. How is there enough demand to justify this?

Bearing in mind a lot of the people flying today will come from West of London where the service by train is a lot slower than 4 hours - and where unless they are coming into Paddington there is no connections to HS2 - and even then there’s still the ticket prices to get right.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

Looking at today’s time table the train on the half hour is typically 4.06-4.10, but the train on the hour is typically 4.30.

So the trip time is a shade over 4 hours and should come down further when the speed limit is raised to 140 vs up to 15 minutes quicker with HS2 depending on how many phases are built, how fast it actually is, and how many stops you have.

According to Wikipedia the Edinburgh time was 3h40 before the Golbourne link was cancelled - so roughly 3h50 without it - and it assumes you can make an express work north of Crewe with the other services. And it presumably assumes you can do full speed through Crewe rather than using the classic line from further south.

 

[Noddy]

So the trip time is a shade over 4 hours vs roughly the same via the West Coast with HS2 and should come down further when the speed limit is raised to 140.

With Phase 2a. With Phase 2b and/or other incremental improvements north of Crewe it would be lower.

When is the ECML being raised to 140mph? How much is it going to cost to convert, reroute or close all those level crossings?

125 to 140mph is a roughly 10% improvement (so hypothetically you could say 10% of 4hrs 6 min would save you roughly 25 minutes so down to 3.40) but AIUI there is about 220 miles out of 390 miles of ECML is setup for 125mph running (let’s call it 60%). So hypothetically thats maybe 15 minutes saved taking it down to around 3.50 for the fast train and 4.15 for the slow train. If anyone has any actual proper data on how raising the linespeed on the ECML from 125 to 140 impacts journey time in the real world I would be very interested to see it.

But fundamentally going back to the OP as soon as you build HS2 (any and/or all sections) you begin open up the Edinburgh market which means Liverpool becomes the third most important destination as you head north westwards and this has to be factored into the overall design, C/B analysis etc etc.

 

[MatthewHutton]

With Phase 2b and/or other incremental improvements north of Crewe it would be lower.

Much more likely a high speed line to the east would be constructed where you start to see real trip time improvements.

But fundamentally going back to the OP as soon as you build HS2 (any and/or all sections) you begin open up the Edinburgh market which means Liverpool becomes the third most important destination as you head north westwards and this has to be factored into the design, C/B analysis etc etc.

There is to be fair at least justification for a semi-fast service to Edinburgh at least - and that would provide significantly better service for the Thames valley (either via OOC or Aylesbury), Coventry and Birmingham than the status quo - and would clearly fit into the timetable north of Crewe.

 

[Noddy]

Much more likely a high speed line to the east would be constructed where you start to see real trip time improvements.

Why? As has already been pointed out that is a longer route as Edinburgh is west of Carlisle, and if you go up the east side you are spending the money to only really benefit Edinburgh. If you spend the same money on the west side you benefit both Glasgow and Edinburgh. That gives better returns on your investment.

There is to be fair at least justification for a semi-fast service to Edinburgh at least - and that would provide significantly better service for the Thames valley (either via OOC or Aylesbury), Coventry and Birmingham than the status quo - and would clearly fit into the timetable north of Crewe.

There already is 1tp2h to Edinburgh from Euston via the WCML so there is no need to justify it.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Why? As has already been pointed out that is a longer route as Edinburgh is west of Carlisle, and if you go up the east side you are spending the money to only really benefit Edinburgh. If you continue up the west side you benefit both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Because on the east you benefit Leeds, Teeside, Hull and Newcastle and potentially other Yorkshire places depending on what is done. And with a 150mph average running speed to Newcastle like the TGV and then the status quo beyond it you can get a trip time of 3h15.

And there is zero realistic prospect of improving the west side north of Preston because it’s an AONB and its mountainous.

It also really isn’t shorter on the west side. It’s 400 miles roughly each way.

There already is a train to Edinburgh via the WCML so there is no need to justify it.

That has 5% of the market from London.

 

[Noddy]

Because on the east you benefit Leeds, Teeside, Hull and Newcastle and potentially other Yorkshire places depending on what is done. And with a 150mph average running speed to Newcastle like the TGV and then the status quo beyond it you can get a trip time of 3h15.

And there is zero realistic prospect of improving the west side north of Preston because it’s an AONB and its mountainous.

It also really isn’t shorter on the west side. It’s 400 miles roughly each way.

That has 5% of the market from London.

HS2 was due to go Leeds! So you’re not making any saving there and the Edinburgh trains were still routed via the western arm because that was quicker and more economical. If you sent them up the east arm they would be slower, because the section that kills the journey time is Edinburgh to Newcastle bit which takes about 1 hour 30 mins/2 hours plus for Glasgow.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Because on the east you benefit Leeds, Teeside, Hull and Newcastle and potentially other Yorkshire places depending on what is done. And with a 150mph average running speed to Newcastle like the TGV and then the status quo beyond it you can get a trip time of 3h15.

And there is zero realistic prospect of improving the west side north of Preston because it’s an AONB and its mountainous.

It also really isn’t shorter on the west side. It’s 400 miles roughly each way.

That has 5% of the market from London.

I agree, personally I think an eastern side high-speed line is likely to be more viable and cheaper than tunnelling to bypass Shap and Beattock. It is hilly in County Durham and north of Berwick but I don't think it's as hilly as the west coast route. If HS2 East was built I would design it to go through Leeds, not terminate there, then go direct to Teesside, up to Newcastle, then to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Include the option to serve York.

 

[MatthewHutton]

because the section that kills the journey time is Edinburgh to Newcastle bit which takes about 1 hour 30 mins/2 hours plus for Glasgow.

It’s significantly more plausible that you would make Newcastle Edinburgh high speed which takes 1h24 today than Preston-Edinburgh/Glasgow which is 2h22 today with 3 stops and maybe 2h10 non stop.

 

[FGWHST43009]

It’s significantly more plausible that you would make Newcastle Edinburgh high speed which takes 1h24 today than Preston-Edinburgh/Glasgow which is 2h22 today with 3 stops and maybe 2h10 non stop.

Current average speed of just under 90mph. With an average speed of 125mph would be around an hour, probably less if the new line is built to a more direct alignment than the existing line. That would reduce York-Edinburgh down to 1:55 using existing ECML York-Newcastle then a hypothetical new line. With HS2 south of York that would have London-Edinburgh to under 3:30. A full high-speed line to Edinburgh up the east coast should have London-Edinburgh to around 3 hours.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Current average speed of just under 90mph. With an average speed of 125mph would be around an hour, probably less if the new line is built to a more direct alignment than the existing line. That would reduce York-Edinburgh down to 1:55 using existing ECML York-Newcastle then a hypothetical new line. With HS2 south of York that would have London-Edinburgh to under 3:30. A full high-speed line to Edinburgh up the east coast should have London-Edinburgh to around 3 hours.

There’s also the challenge about whether HS2 phase 1 in reality has capacity for all of this stuff and/or whether e.g London-Chester or maybe even London-Shrewsbury is done via HS2. And also what you actually end up doing east of Birmingham.

 

[Noddy]

I agree, personally I think an eastern side high-speed line is likely to be more viable and cheaper than tunnelling to bypass Shap and Beattock. It is hilly in County Durham and north of Berwick but I don't think it's as hilly as the west coast route. If HS2 East was built I would design it to go through Leeds, not terminate there, then go direct to Teesside, up to Newcastle, then to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Include the option to serve York.

Are you talking about building a complete HS line to the central belt? That is crazy. I’m talking about spending the limited amount of money available in a Phase 2/post-phase 2 era/money not spent on a high speed branch to Liverpool to make improvements. These are likely to be (relatively) small. Likely running billions but not many 10s or 100s of billions. No one is building long sections of completely new HS lines north of a line say through Leeds and Preston.

It’s significantly more plausible that you would make Newcastle Edinburgh high speed which takes 1h24 today than Preston-Edinburgh/Glasgow which is 2h22 today with 3 stops and maybe 2h10 non stop.

As above. If you are thinking that you’re getting a completely new line to the north that is compete madness. I am talking about some short sections/by passes/junction and capacity improvements etc but not a complete new railway. Once HS2 is built Edinburgh from Euston is quicker. After that the money you spend in southern Scotland and Northumberland either benefits both Glasgow and Edinburgh (WCML) or just Edinburgh (ECML) and if it is spent on the latter it still only just keeps it up level pegging with the HS2 speeds rather than the extra gains you would have made via the WCML improvements, which would have also benefited Glasgow.

 

[FGWHST43009]

There’s also the challenge about whether HS2 phase 1 in reality has capacity for all of this stuff and/or whether e.g London-Chester or maybe even London-Shrewsbury is done via HS2. And also what you actually end up doing east of Birmingham.

I think the full network would mean 18tph on HS2 south of Birmingham Interchange, which probably doesn't leave a lot of room for future growth. Veering off topic long term there should be a second north-south line further east. What route that would take is probably less certain, there are a few options I've thought of. Probably connect with HS2 east either near East Midlands Hub or Sheffield.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

Are you talking about building a complete HS line to the central belt? That is crazy. I’m talking about spending the limited amount of money available in a Phase 2/post-phase 2 era/money not spent on a high speed branch to Liverpool to make improvements. These are likely to be (relatively) small. Likely running billions but not many 10s or 100s of billions. No one is building long sections of completely new HS lines north of a line say through Leeds and Preston.

I would probably do Newcastle to Edinburgh first, maybe starting off with a Morpeth bypass and a bypass of the curvy bits between Berwick and Dunbar

 

[Noddy]

I would probably do Newcastle to Edinburgh first, maybe starting off with a Morpeth bypass and a bypass of the curvy bits between Berwick and Dunbar

That is never going to be economically viable.

 

[MatthewHutton]

That is never going to be economically viable.

High speed lines in other countries cost from like £25m/km in rural areas.

And you are going to need to get much closer to that to even get HS2 phase 2a built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

am talking about some short sections/by passes/junction and capacity improvements etc but not a complete new railway.

You will not get those done north of Preston. It’s an AONB.

 

[Noddy]

High speed lines in other countries cost from like £25m/km in rural areas.

And you are going to need to get much closer to that to even get HS2 phase 2a built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

Nowhere in Europe is building lines at £25m/km in 2026 prices.

You will not get those done north of Preston. It’s an AONB.

HS2 Phase 1 is literally being built through an AONB.

 

[JamesT]

You will not get those done north of Preston. It’s an AONB.

So is the Northumberland Coast that you want to run a line from Edinburgh to Newcastle...

 

[IRF]

It's actually two national parks north of Preston, therefore even more protected than AONBs - the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales almost touch at one point, only separated by the width of the M6 motorway.

 

[Krokodil]

So no HS2 London service to Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith and Carlisle. Madness.

I don't know when that diagram dates from but I was under the impression that the powers-that-be had seen sense and decided to divide the Anglo-Scot trains at Carlisle instead of Carstairs. I was also under the impression that the service that calls at Warrington etc. was to continue to Lancaster. Penrith losing a direct service is an inconvenient for a small minority.

It’s inconceivable that Preston+Edinburgh+Glasgow gives you enough demand as well so it’s pretty pointless.

LNER is currently pricing off passengers because there's too little capacity. There's a massive market there to tap if the capacity allows fares to fall.

Because on the east you benefit Leeds, Teeside, Hull and Newcastle and potentially other Yorkshire places depending on what is done.

If you're suggesting that the Eastern Leg be reinstated, there'll be no objection from me. In addition to Golborne etc., of course.

 

[Noddy]

It's actually two national parks north of Preston, therefore even more protected than AONBs - the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales almost touch at one point, only separated by the width of the M6 motorway.

But we have to remember that’s only one relatively short section and not get hung up about it. There are plenty of other longer sections to both the north and south where you could spend money to make incremental improvements, and get far more value for money out of it.

 

[NCT]

I don't know when that diagram dates from but I was under the impression that the powers-that-be had seen sense and decided to divide the Anglo-Scot trains at Carlisle instead of Carstairs. I was also under the impression that the service that calls at Warrington etc. was to continue to Lancaster. Penrith losing a direct service is an inconvenient for a small minority.

Correct. Once again I link to the 2017 Economic Case

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f5f62ffd3bf7f723e21c07c/high-speed-two-phase-two-economic-case-document.pdf

See appendix A1-A5 - A5 is the scenario where the Preston terminator is extended to Lancaster. (Carstairs to Carlisle isn't in that document - can't quite remember when that change was made)

LNER is currently pricing off passengers because there's too little capacity. There's a massive market there to tap if the capacity allows fares to fall.

Indeed.

If you're suggesting that the Eastern Leg be reinstated, there'll be no objection from me. In addition to Golborne etc., of course.

No objection from me either.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Penrith losing a direct service is an inconvenient for a small minority.

Penrith and Oxenholme each have 90k passengers a year to London. That’s more than Carlisle.

 

[AlexSJW]

Very much dependent on battery technology developments, but there is also a non-zero chance that electric short haul aircraft could eat into the inter city market. Not in the next 10 years, but maybe 20.

Sooner than you think. These EV planes cam be short take off and landing using a many small motors and propellers on the wings. They can operate from runways constructed on water near city centres. Cardiff, Newcastle, Glasgow, Plymouth, Bristol and Liverpool to name a few. Liverpool can have an artificial island between Liverpool and Birkenhead with lift shafts down to a metro station in the tunnel under. Similar with Newcastle and Glasgow.

An aircraft only needs land at each end of a journey. A train needs land all the way with multiple crossings of road, rail and water. There is a reason why the USA went for aircraft rather than build expensive tracks.

Battery technology has greatly improved, that they will here quite soon:

How passenger electric planes could become a reality within the next decade

Researchers have found a way to make passenger airplanes that operate on 100% electric power.

abcnews.go.com

 

[MatthewHutton]

LNER is currently pricing off passengers because there's too little capacity. There's a massive market there to tap if the capacity allows fares to fall.

Even with the capacity boost in December?

 

[TheGrew]

I think realistically, the only way to really speed up the Lancaster-Carlisle section is some sort of base tunnel from Kendal to somewhere just North of Penrith.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think realistically, the only way to really speed up the Lancaster-Carlisle section is some sort of base tunnel from Kendal to somewhere just North of Penrith.

Quite. And which would be enormously expensive given the small size of the Scottish central belt and given the high quality of the existing line.

 

[Krokodil]

It’s significantly more plausible that you would make Newcastle Edinburgh high speed which takes 1h24 today than Preston-Edinburgh/Glasgow which is 2h22 today with 3 stops and maybe 2h10 non stop.

My maths says that Euston to Edinburgh via Newcastle would be 3:45, compared with 3:40 via Carlisle. Obviously the odd cut off would close the difference but there would be no benefit to Glasgow. Via Carlisle benefits both equally. I am in favour of running HS2 trains beyond Newcastle to Edinburgh, but as a supplement for the via Carlisle ones, not as a substitute.

It's actually two national parks north of Preston, therefore even more protected than AONBs - the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales almost touch at one point, only separated by the width of the M6 motorway.

If we were really serious about doing it, a Shap Base Tunnel of around 20 miles would keep both portals outside of the national park. It would of course have capacity benefits as well as journey times, it's a fairly congested route and you could segregate the fast passenger trains from the freight which can continue to crawl up the existing route. I dread to think what the per-km costs of a base tunnel would be when translated into British figures!

 

[FGWHST43009]

My maths says that Euston to Edinburgh via Newcastle would be 3:45, compared with 3:40 via Carlisle. Obviously the odd cut off would close the difference but there would be no benefit to Glasgow. Via Carlisle benefits both equally. I am in favour of running HS2 trains beyond Newcastle to Edinburgh, but as a supplement for the via Carlisle ones, not as a substitute.

While I think a new line between Newcastle and Edinburgh is better long-term, I do think it's a bit illogical that the eastern leg HS2 services were going to terminate at Newcastle and not continue to Edinburgh. I would extend the Curzon Street service and a Euston service stopping at East Midlands Hub to connect up to that area. Ideally I would build Sheffield Meadowhall and Leeds as a through station to maximise on connections, to relieve pressure on TPE and XC services.