Fantasy: If you could re-design HS2 ...

[Noddy]

Other main thing I'd have done is made it a standard 300km/h French style LGV rather than the much higher speed proposed. And not wasted money on Chiltern tunnels however much they moaned.

The French don’t build their high speeds lines to 300kph and haven’t for decades. LGV Est for example, the first phase of which is almost 20 years old, operates at 320kph and was designed for 350kph.

 

[Shrop]

That is, I think, why a bunch of people here, including both amateurs like myself and experts like @The Planner have "remove Handsacre, have phase 1 all the way to Crewe" as the main/only change to the route under construction.

I do think since level of phasing is likely necessary, because of how big the project is. I suggested splitting the project in 2 in my earlier post upthread, for example.

Phase 1 being all the way to Crewe makes some sense, at least more so than Phase 1 being to Birmingham. However I'd prefer to have seen Phase 1 as London to Leeds, with subsequent Phases (following close behind, not untold years later) focussing on linking both Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham.

What should have been the success of HS2 (which would have been already open for some years by now in more or less any other country which has invested in high speed rail), would have then inspired further Phases such as Liverpool to Leeds, Newcastle and Scotland.

Providing capacity relief between Rugby and Birmingham just needed a separate scheme, it didn't need HS2, and the rest of WCML would have been sufficiently relieved by the above scheme between London and Manchester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

OOC is for Heathrow. It's needed.

I thought OOC was for Crossrail? And the HS2-HS1 link which was part of the original design, should have provided enough opportunities for rail trips between Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds and France/Germany/Belgium/ Netherlands etc, that serving Heathrow wouldn't have been worthwhile.

I would add an M25 Parkway though. Remember almost all journeys are not city centre to city centre but rather suburb to city centre.

Other main thing I'd have done is made it a standard 300km/h French style LGV rather than the much higher speed proposed. And not wasted money on Chiltern tunnels however much they moaned.

Chiltern tunnels? Yes I thought about those whilst on Eurostar a few days ago, whilst noticing children covering their ears due to the pressure changes going into and out of the tunnels between Ebbsfleet and St Pancras. Of course tunnels are necessary in places, but I do wonder whether the comfort factor going through all the Chiltern tunnels on HS2 will adversely affect its value in the minds of the public?

 

[CMS1]

3 points:

• Whilst Birmingham is the UK's 2nd city by population, Manchester is 2nd other ways, commercially, economically (and growing faster). However Manchester is also more isolated than most due to the Pennines (especially from the West Riding and the East Midlands), so bridging this gap is a big opportunity for high speed rail, and would give rail a big advantage over road in those pairs. Crossing the Pennines is quite different to crossing the Chilterns, which doesn't really add any value as they easily bypassed
• There are areas of the network that are 125mph and have spare capacity, and therefore not sensible to replicate with a new high speed line, e.g. the quadruple Trent Valley lines.
• The M1 planners sensibly recognised that there is a fairly straight chain of cities (or v large towns) north-south comparatively close together - Luton, MK, Northampton, Leicester, Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds (with lots of other large towns in between) whereas the major Birmingham and Manchester metropolis which are slightly off course are served by the M6. No railway connects this chain, and some of the neighbouring pairs like Northampton-Leicester have no sensible rail options at all.

Considering these points and others, IMO the best route would have been something like the below (which for a lot of the route is adjacent to the M1), possibly with a longer new spur into Birmingham

 

[Noddy]

3 points:

• Whilst Birmingham is the UK's 2nd city by population, Manchester is 2nd other ways, commercially, economically (and growing faster). However Manchester is also more isolated than most due to the Pennines (especially from the West Riding and the East Midlands), so bridging this gap is a big opportunity for high speed rail, and would give rail a big advantage over road in those pairs. Crossing the Pennines is quite different to crossing the Chilterns which doesn't really add any value as they easily bypassed
• There are areas of the network that are 125mph and have spare capacity, and therefore not sensible to replicate with a new high speed line, e.g. the quadruple Trent Valley lines.
• The M1 planners sensibly recognised that there is a fairly straight chain of cities (or v large towns) north-south comparatively close together - Luton, MK, Northampton, Leicester, Nottingham/Derby, Sheffield, Leeds (with lots of other large towns in between) whereas the major Birmingham and Manchester metropolis which are slightly off course are served by the M6. No railway connects this chain, and some of the neighbouring pairs like Northampton-Leicester have no sensible rail options at all.

Considering these points and others, IMO the best route would have been something like the below (which for a lot of the route is adjacent to the M1), possibly with a longer new spur into Birmingham
View attachment 198224

Again, if folk thought crossing the Chilterns AONB was hard, the UK’s first National Park says hello.

And that design still either crosses the Chiltern AONB or goes through the middle of Luton.

 

[CMS1]

Again, if folk thought crossing the Chilterns AONB was hard, the UK’s first National Park says hello.

A Pennine crossing would be very expensive but would be a game changer. A Chiltern crossing is very expensive and adds very little to the alternatives.

 

[ABB125]

And that design still either crosses the Chiltern AONB or goes through the middle of Luton.

Some might say that bulldozing half of Luton in order to put HS2 through would be the best possible improvement to the town...

 

[FGWHST43009]

Again, if folk thought crossing the Chilterns AONB was hard, the UK’s first National Park says hello.

And that design still either crosses the Chiltern AONB or goes through the middle of Luton.

Either tunnel under Luton and build an interchange at Luton Airport Parkway or skirt around the eastern edge just west of Hitchin or follow the ECML more closely then build a new interchange at Bedford. Bedford alone won't justify being on a high-speed line but it can serve as a hub for other places such as Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Luton. Although there are two forests near Welwyn, although you could just get through the gap between the two and bulldoze the tiny airfield currently in the way. Try to follow the ECML until Sandy then turn off for Leicester

Some might say that bulldozing half of Luton in order to put HS2 through would be the best possible improvement to the town...

Or double-deck the railway. If you're going through Luton I would add a station, they'd probably want one given the costs. It can also serve as an outer-London interchange, although Bedford might be better suited to that as it will have better onward connections

 

[Noddy]

A Pennine crossing would be very expensive but would be a game changer. A Chiltern crossing is very expensive and adds very little to the alternatives.

If it was a motorway I would agree with you, but as a Manchester-Sheffield railway not really.

Some might say that bulldozing half of Luton in order to put HS2 through would be the best possible improvement to the town...

It would be an awful big mess for decades. It would make operating the hospital very interesting too…

 

[ABB125]

A Pennine crossing would be very expensive but would be a game changer. A Chiltern crossing is very expensive and adds very little to the alternatives.

This I mainly agree with. A 250km/h Pennine base tunnel would be transformational. But the argument over Huddersfield vs Bradford that usually comes up is a distraction; the route should instead go to somewhere in the vicinity of Penistone, with a delta junction there and branches to both Leeds and Sheffield. At a stroke you provide a frankly incomprehensible upgrade to northern intercity travel. And this triangular line can be linked to further high speed lines at the ends as they come along.

Edit: add a new (tolled) motorway parallel to the rail tunnel for even greater benefits

 

[CMS1]

If it was a motorway I would agree with you, but as a Manchester-Sheffield railway not really.

Its not only Manchester to Sheffield, it's connecting Manchester to Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Doncaster, Hull etc.

 

[Noddy]

Its not only Manchester to Sheffield, it's connecting Manchester to Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Doncaster, Hull etc.

With no disrespect to those towns and cities so what? Sheffield is the 6th biggest English urban area, Leicester is 11, Nottingham 14, Hull 20, Derby 22, Donny (much as I love it) 54.

HS2 Y did London (1) to Birmingham (2), Manchester (3), Liverpool (4), Leeds (5) and Sheffield (6), as well as Birmingham (2) to Manchester (3), Leeds (5) and Sheffield (6). It eats that for breakfast.

 

[CMS1]

With no disrespect to those towns and cities so what? Sheffield is the 6th biggest English urban area, Leicester is 11, Nottingham 14, Hull 20, Derby 22, Donny (much as I love it) 54.

You're forgetting these cities are close together and, combined with surrounding large towns, form overall densely populated areas that are much higher on the list (i.e. HS2s 'East Midlands Parkway). Overall West Riding has a population of around 4 milion and East Midlands about 5.5.

HS2 Y did London (1) to Birmingham (2), Manchester (3), Liverpool (4), Leeds (5) and Sheffield (6), as well as Birmingham (2) to Manchester (3), Leeds (5) and Sheffield (6). It eats that for breakfast.

It didn't connect Manchester and Liverpool to Leeds or Sheffield, only replicated the existing connections, and with a lot more railway compared to my sketch above. And as pointed out, whilst Birmingham beats it in population, Manchester is the no 2 city in other metrics and the 2nd most important city IMO.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Old Oak is not some silly optional extra. Via the Elizabeth Line it has far superior connections to most of London than Euston does. It would also be well-connected to Heathrow which is a major transport hub.

Lying on the GWML it has connections to much of western England and especially the Thames Valley area which is both densely populated and economically important. If integrated to Willesden Junction it would have further connections to other parts of Outer London.

The number of people served by a stop at OOC would be enormous and it would be seriously counterproductive to suggest skipping it.

Some might say that bulldozing half of Luton in order to put HS2 through would be the best possible improvement to the town...

An extreme outcome, somewhat contradicting what I have just said, might be that Luton, not Heathrow, could be developed as the country’s premier airport. (Obviously this would involve huge work and I feel that this would drag this discussion way off tangent).

3 points:

• Whilst Birmingham is the UK's 2nd city by population, Manchester is 2nd other ways, commercially, economically (and growing faster).
• There are areas of the network that are 125mph and have spare capacity, and therefore not sensible to replicate with a new high speed line, e.g. the quadruple Trent Valley lines.
• The M1 planners sensibly recognised that there is a fairly straight chain of cities (or v large towns) north-south comparatively close together .

Considering these points and others, IMO the best route would have been something like the below (which for a lot of the route is adjacent to the M1), possibly with a longer new spur into Birmingham
View attachment 198224

Your arguments are persuasive, although I would argue that both this and a route through Birmingham to the north should have been built!

 

[etr221]

My starting point would be to link London and Central Scotland, i.e. Edinburgh and Glasgow, with a spec to beat planes (so 3 hours or little more) - this is the game changer to justify the whole project: the UK is then lucky that so many of its other cities would be close to being en route. Then from that starting point the issue is which and how are the places in between to be served? And, perhaps, will one line north from London be enough, capacity wise (in the medium, if not longest, term)? If it isn't then what?

 

[Shrop]

My starting point would be to link London and Central Scotland, i.e. Edinburgh and Glasgow, with a spec to beat planes (so 3 hours or little more) - this is the game changer to justify the whole project: the UK is then lucky that so many of its other cities would be close to being en route. Then from that starting point the issue is which and how are the places in between to be served? And, perhaps, will one line north from London be enough, capacity wise (in the medium, if not longest, term)? If it isn't then what?

Not sure why you would say "3 hours or little more"? The many countries which already have high speed rail, would have the requisite distance of 400 miles as an absolute maximum of 2h30m.
Look at China for example, where Beijing to Shanghai has many trains every day taking just 4h15m for the distance of 809 miles. This route has been in service since 2011, and yet in the early 2000s it was only marginally ahead of the embryonic HS2 as a concept.

 

[Pete_uk]

Make it a 150mph line.

Have planning permission for as much as possible before starting.

 

[Noddy]

You're forgetting these cities are close together and, combined with surrounding large towns, form overall densely populated areas that are much higher on the list (i.e. HS2s 'East Midlands Parkway). Overall West Riding has a population of around 4 milion and East Midlands about 5.5.

Except HS2 Y did serve East Midlands Parkway! I just didn’t include it because it was already so far down the list of large urban areas. Giving exceptionally rapid journey times between West Midlands-East Midlands-West Riding and West Midlands-Greater Manchester. Birmingham to Leeds would be 1 hour.

It didn't connect Manchester and Liverpool to Leeds or Sheffield, only replicated the existing connections, and with a lot more railway compared to my sketch above. And as pointed out, whilst Birmingham beats it in population, Manchester is the no 2 city in other metrics and the 2nd most important city IMO.

It doesn’t matter which metric you want use to argue whether Manchester or Birmingham is the second or third city. Any route to Manchester via Sheffield fails to connect to second largest city with the third largest city. And while it’s not directly within the bounds of the National Park I’m sure building a delta junction to also serve Leeds would be extremely popular with the residents of the Penistone and Stockbridge area. The National Park authority may still have a thing or two to say about that.

And the proposed route map still crosses a National Park and the Chilterns/demolishes Luton.

 

[Austriantrain]

If you could re-design HS2 with hindsight, knowing everything you know now, would you do it differently?

Not treat it like UK Shinkansen. Make sure Curzon/Moor Street works as the new central station of Birmingham, with possibilities to run Bristol/Reading - B‘ham - HS2 - Crewe/Leeds or London - HS2 - B‘ham - Wolverhampton/Worcester etc.

Do the same in Leeds and use Leeds HS2 as an „overflow“ East - West Station for Transpennine.

Expensive chords, larger stations etc? Yes. But vastly superior in value for „the rest of the country“ I.e. everything not London. If even places like Wolverhampton don‘t see a gain from HS2, why would anybody support it? For most of England, it looked like a London-project (mostly deserved), whereas Londoners couldn’t care less.

At this point in history: ensure that Euston HS2 is prepared for dealing with 18 departures/hour (at least, make it so that it can easily be expanded later). Otherwise, it really looks like one of the worst and most absurd HS scheme anywhere in Europe, on a par with Spain.

 

[CMS1]

Except HS2 Y did serve East Midlands Parkway! I just didn’t include it because it was already so far down the list of large urban areas.

The area East Midlands Parkway would serve is probably 3M+ population so its high on the list

Any route to Manchester via Sheffield fails to connect to second largest city with the third largest city.

They are already comparitively well connected, and with speed upgrades don't need a new line IMO, as on my sketch Manchester would get a new high speed London route via Sheffield taking all this traffic away.
On the contrary there are huge cities and millions of people each side of the pennine divide which HS2 failed spectacurly to resolve.

The below (poor) map of UK's current high speed network hopefully helps explain:

Old Oak is not some silly optional extra. Via the Elizabeth Line it has far superior connections to most of London than Euston does. It would also be well-connected to Heathrow which is a major transport hub.

Lying on the GWML it has connections to much of western England and especially the Thames Valley area which is both densely populated and economically important. If integrated to Willesden Junction it would have further connections to other parts of Outer London.

Agree, OOC is one of the (few) good things about HS2

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

/demolishes Luton

It could go alongside the M1 then need a tunnel at Luton about 3/4 miles

 

[Noddy]

They are already comparitively well connected, and with speed upgrades don't need a new line IMO, as on my sketch Manchester would get a new high speed London route via Sheffield taking all this traffic away.
On the contrary there are huge cities and millions of people each side of the pennine divide which HS2 failed spectacurly to resolve.

But that doesn’t solve the issue that it fails connect the second and third largest markets together. I could make exactly the same argument about making speed upgrades to Sheffield-Manchester as you do about Birmingham-Manchester.

It also doesn’t connect the West Midlands (second/third largest market) with the East Midlands, Sheffield or Leeds, unless you build a new Birmingham-East midlands line (Phase 2 anyone?). But the really key issue is crosses the UKs oldest National Park, and build a delta junction next to it…

 

[CMS1]

. I could make exactly the same argument about making speed upgrades to Sheffield-Manchester as you do about Birmingham-Manchester.

There's a slight difference between the WCML and the Hope Valley line!

 

[Noddy]

There's a slight difference between the WCML and the Hope Valley line!

Yep, it’s less than a third of the length of Birmingham-Manchester!

 

[CMS1]

Yep, it’s less than a third of the length of Birmingham-Manchester!

Maybe as the crow flies, by rail its a wiggly route - 44 miles vs Birmingham-Manchester 81 miles, which is one of the many reasons it's not suitable as part of the UK high speed network!

 

[Shrop]

Maybe as the crow flies, by rail its a wiggly route - 44 miles vs Birmingham-Manchester 81 miles, which is one of the many reasons it's not suitable as part of the UK high speed network!

Surely crossing the Peak District could have a significant part in tunnel, thus not being aesthetically intrusive, nor so vulnerable to the weather, and could be straighter too?

 

[Noddy]

Maybe as the crow flies, by rail its a wiggly route - 44 miles vs Birmingham-Manchester 81 miles, which is one of the many reasons it's not suitable as part of the UK high speed network!

There’s absolutely no reason for it to be part of the UK high speed network, which is why NPR never proposed it and went to Leeds instead. Sheffield-Manchester needs to be part of a really good regional network, which is what NPR hopefully can deliver.

 

[CMS1]

Surely crossing the Peak District could have a significant part in tunnel, thus not being aesthetically intrusive, nor so vulnerable to the weather, and could be straighter too?

Exactly

 

[Noddy]

Surely crossing the Peak District could have a significant part in tunnel, thus not being aesthetically intrusive, nor so vulnerable to the weather, and could be straighter too?

Vastly expensive and tunnelling would still require above ground works. Nothing is ever insurmountable, but it’s only surmountable at vast expense and in this case vast controversy (think Chilterns dialled up to 11) if you build a delta junction on the suggested location. While CMS is proposing London-Manchester trains go this way London-Scotland trains would not use it, and I suspect London-Liverpool trains would still be quicker down the upgraded WCML they are talking about building to serve London-Birmingham-Manchester. So where in the business case is the money coming from to pay for all this?

 

[AlexSJW]

More 'Y' maps. mmmmmmmm. 'Y' is the worst configuration.
The best is the High Speed UK configuration.

• As it stands It is best drop the Handsacre branch onto the WCML.
  Then run HS2 from Fradley to the Colwich-Stone line at Hixon.
• Just before Stone Liverpool and Scots trains diverge onto new track to the WCML north of Norton Bridge,
• Manchester trains continue via upgraded line via Stoke, the shortest route - Stone, Stoke and Manchester are all above each other.
• An extra 17 miles of high speed track meaning three quarters of the line from London to Manchester is high speed track.
• High speeds are then possible to just outside Stone.
• Make WCML all 4-track north of Crewe to at least Weaver junction.
• Journey times to Liverpool and Manchester are then excellent.

 

[FMerrymon]

I don't think I could design a better overall route than the existing one that's been produced by dozens of trained experts (the fact that mismanagement, NIMBYism and political interference has led to the route being quite troublesome is another thing). There are a few minor things that I would've liked to see more accommodation for:
- Better interchange between Curzon Street and New Street: walking between the two will be frustrating with luggage and I doubt GBR tickets will be valid on the Metro.
- Provision for an orbital line round London, either as an HS1 link or via Heathrow (think LGV Interconnexion)
- Ironically, probably less places for the route to join the mainline, as then you could get large portions of it built in one phase instead of building up to a junction then stopping construction until further funding is approved.
- Building Birmingham Interchange about halfway between Coventry and the Airport instead of as a giant parkway station, with a people mover connecting the airport, International station, the NEC, Interchange HS2 station and Coventry, where it would join the city's light rail network. Then you could build a lot of high-value housing around the station as well. I know the WM Metro Eastside extension will eventually get to Interchange but that'll take decades at this rate.
- Some better solution than East Midlands Hub: serve one of Nottingham or Derby, rather than neither

With you on everything until east midlands hub. That was a great plan.

Id also ensure better LO integration at OOC by moving North Pole depot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought OOC was for Crossrail? And the HS2-HS1 link which was part of the original design, should have provided enough opportunities for rail trips between Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds and France/Germany/Belgium/ Netherlands etc, that serving Heathrow wouldn't have been worthwhile.

You're forgetting long haul. The aim would be to wipe out domestic air travel entirely by allowing through tickets to be sold for high speed rail+long haul air.

Aside from maybe Paris though I don't agree people would abandon air so quickly. Inevitably through Eurostar services would be expensive, and they would take much longer than flying.