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

[FMerrymon]

I'd have lifted some of the project out of the main budget and developed them separately. The Birmingham spur, OOC and Euston. Therefore the line would have looked cheaper and been more comparable cost per mile to how the European do it, than the way its set up now generating headlines. Help fund the stations, not fully wouldnt cover it, with developer contributions or some form of contribution from the land value increase.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd have lifted some of the project out of the main budget and developed them separately. The Birmingham spur, OOC and Euston. Therefore the line would have looked cheaper and been more comparable cost per mile to how the European do it, than the way its set up now generating headlines. Help fund the stations, not fully wouldnt cover it, with developer contributions or some form of contribution from the land value increase.

Euston is a bit stymied by the anti-urbanist policies around maintaining views from Primrose Hill to St Paul's, which would prohibit what would make sense, funding a seriously improved Euston rebuild by selling tower blocks full of offices and expensive flats on top (and I wonder just how many care about whether you can see one specific building or not, even if it is quite an attractive looking one). However I do think you could do *something* commercially with Euston.

 

[Farigiraf]

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

It's a great idea on paper, but in practice I think it would've just been a duplicate of EM Parkway station. The vast majority people from Derby/Nottingham wouldn't change trains heading to London even if it meant a faster journey - they would take the direct MML service to St Pancras instead, which would not be a problem if the MML wasn't over capacity and unelectrified - but alas it is. Maybe the London-Sheffield traffic going over to HS2 would allow for more MML Derby/Nottinghams, but it still doesn't leave EM Hub with that much of a use. Perhaps I could add to my list of adjustments I'd make that the HS2 eastern leg should've been designed to be used by NE-SW CrossCountry services too, as then EM Hub as purely an M1 parkway but with direct trains to Bristol, Leeds etc would make a lot of sense.

 

[CMS1]

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?

The business case for this Manchester route rather than HS2s Manchester branch is, on route to London, it provides a proper connection from Manchester (and Liverpool) to millions the other side of the pennines , rather than just replicating WCML connections. Plus half of it will probably be paid for by avoiding the Chilterns.

 

[FGWHST43009]

It's a great idea on paper, but in practice I think it would've just been a duplicate of EM Parkway station. The vast majority people from Derby/Nottingham wouldn't change trains heading to London even if it meant a faster journey - they would take the direct MML service to St Pancras instead, which would not be a problem if the MML wasn't over capacity and unelectrified - but alas it is. Maybe the London-Sheffield traffic going over to HS2 would allow for more MML Derby/Nottinghams, but it still doesn't leave EM Hub with that much of a use. Perhaps I could add to my list of adjustments I'd make that the HS2 eastern leg should've been designed to be used by NE-SW CrossCountry services too, as then EM Hub as purely an M1 parkway but with direct trains to Bristol, Leeds etc would make a lot of sense.

East Midlands Hub is not ideal, but it's a reasonable compromise compared to trying to serve both Derby and Nottingham. Making sure that the connecting transport links are as good as possible is what would make EMH work, i.e. frequent electric regional trains, frequent trams and good buses and active travel connections.

 

[Shrop]

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.

Yes, it takes longer than flying, but the check in times are shorter, and a lot of people enjoy the benefits of city centre terminals, avoiding transfers. This is worth a good couple of hours against the the journey time.
Having recently enjoyed London to Strasbourg by Eurostar and TGV, I also enjoyed being able to move around in the train to the buffet etc, more easily than when flying, when their trolley service completely blocks the aisles.
Each to their own I guess!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, it takes longer than flying, but the check in times are shorter, and a lot of people enjoy the benefits of city centre terminals, avoiding transfers. This is worth a good couple of hours against the the journey time.

This is a fallacy. You don't need to check in two hours before a European flight - you just need to have passed security a specified time before, BA I believe use 35 minutes at Heathrow. And most journeys are not city centre to city centre, they are suburb to city centre (which is why I consider the Parkway stations crucial to HS2 and really think there should be an M25 Parkway - OOC is valuable but too far in). Hardly anyone lives in city centres compared to the number who do not. Thus often a drive or taxi to the nearest airport is more convenient than getting to central London, for instance.

While I know not everything serves Deansgate, there's not a campaign to have trains not stop at both Oxford Road and Picc, nor to get Stockport stops taken out of London services - and that's because a couple of stations in your big city both serve an important purpose.

Along similar lines, HS2 Liverpools need to serve South Parkway and Runcorn (and if NPR is built there needs to be a substitute for these), and Manchester Airport station is crucial to HS2, not to serve the airport but as a park and ride for vast swathes of rich South Manchester and North Cheshire like Stockport acts now.

 

[Noddy]

The business case for this Manchester route rather than HS2s Manchester branch is, on route to London, it provides a proper connection from Manchester (and Liverpool) to millions the other side of the pennines , rather than just replicating WCML connections. Plus half of it will probably be paid for by avoiding the Chilterns.

I love that you think this. But sadly it doesn’t make it true. There is zero chance it would be cheaper than crossing the Chilterns, and it would be vastly more controversial.

 

[CMS1]

I love that you think this. But sadly it doesn’t make it true.

You're entitled to your opinion!

 

[blimmo]

I'm not convinced there's much design change that would reduce the expense. I suspect most of the problems are structural to the way this country works (planning) or due to very specific details of the plan that are never going to be worked out by enthusiasts on a forum.

I would just do the Northern phases of hs2 first. At least then it won't get cancelled (can you imagine politicians cancelling the leg to london)

 

[D6130]

I'm not convinced there's much design change that would reduce the expense. I suspect most of the problems are structural to the way this country works (planning) or due to very specific details of the plan that are never going to be worked out by enthusiasts on a forum.

I would just do the Northern phases of hs2 first. At least then it won't get cancelled (can you imagine politicians cancelling the leg to london)

Yes....they should have started at Edinburgh and Glasgow and worked their way Southwards towards London!

 

[Shrop]

This is a fallacy. You don't need to check in two hours before a European flight - you just need to have passed security a specified time before, BA I believe use 35 minutes at Heathrow. And most journeys are not city centre to city centre, they are suburb to city centre (which is why I consider the Parkway stations crucial to HS2 and really think there should be an M25 Parkway - OOC is valuable but too far in). Hardly anyone lives in city centres compared to the number who do not. Thus often a drive or taxi to the nearest airport is more convenient than getting to central London, for instance.

Like I said earlier, its each to their own. I've heard plenty of stories (first hand and from others) of passengers arriving for flights and been held for ages at security, or even arriving at the gate only to find boarding denied as the cut off time had gone. This happens much less on trains.
Also, coming from many places on the train into Euston, St.Pancras is vastly easier to get to, to catch the Eurostar than Heathrow, or Gatwick. Or Stansted etc. Same with people arriving at King's Cross or St.Pancras, and these account for many people.

 

[NCT]

I love that you think this. But sadly it doesn’t make it true. There is zero chance it would be cheaper than crossing the Chilterns, and it would be vastly more controversial.

This.

 

[A S Leib]

Aside from maybe Paris though I don't agree people would abandon air so quickly.

Brussels as well?

Demand for Schiphol's probably partly due to a lack of domestic connecting flights at Heathrow due to expensive landing slots so I'd suspect Amsterdam flights to be keep higher demand (this is going off-topic).

 

[martin butler]

What would I do differently, first, I would have built it straight after HS1was completed, as an extension to HS1, direct to Scotland, to join up with continental services, starting construction from Scotland towards London at Stratford, the lines would have diverged, passengers wanting to join Scottish, bound services could do so it Stratford, but London bound international, and domestic , would still operate, via a chord line,

Once the main route is operating, then a spur to Birmingham, and other destinations, could be looked into, but for me the main idea of the high-speed route would be as an international route, connecting European capitals, that's not to say of course that domestic services couldn't operate over it, but I would have ensured the main route is operating first, before adding branches to the trunk route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Brussels as well?

Possibly, but I don't think the demand is anywhere near as great from the UK as for Paris.

 

[martin butler]

Possibly, but I don't think the demand is anywhere near as great from the UK as for Paris.

Would a Berlin, Brussels, paris, then direct to Scotland, with a stop at Stratford to set down/ pick up have much demand?

 

[Uncle Buck]

What would I do differently, first, I would have built it straight after HS1was completed, as an extension to HS1, direct to Scotland, to join up with continental services, starting construction from Scotland towards London at Stratford, the lines would have diverged, passengers wanting to join Scottish, bound services could do so it Stratford, but London bound international, and domestic , would still operate, via a chord line,

What about Ebbsfleet-Stratford-Stansted-Milton Keynes and follow the M1? Stratford, not Old Oak, then becomes the major hub for Outer London.

 

[A S Leib]

Would a Berlin, Brussels, paris, then direct to Scotland, with a stop at Stratford to set down/ pick up have much demand?

Separate Berlin / Brussels services rather than a massive diversion south for Paris, I'm assuming?

From a quick search, Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow combined have around 17 flights per day to Paris, which is around 4(?) full-length HS2 trains, to give an estimate for a higher end of demand without the Stratford stop. Given the existing London to Rotterdam / Amsterdam service, I wouldn't necessarily say that 4tpd would be too low to be worth running.

 

[D6130]

Possibly, but I don't think the demand is anywhere near as great from the UK as for Paris.

Especially since our exit from the EU.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Separate Berlin / Brussels services rather than a massive diversion south for Paris, I'm assuming?

From a quick search, Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow combined have around 17 flights per day to Paris, which is around 4(?) full-length HS2 trains, to give an estimate for a higher end of demand without the Stratford stop. Given the existing London to Rotterdam / Amsterdam service, I wouldn't necessarily say that 4tpd would be too low to be worth running.

Add in Birmingham, Leeds etc that should mean international trains are worthwhile.

What would I do differently, first, I would have built it straight after HS1was completed, as an extension to HS1, direct to Scotland, to join up with continental services, starting construction from Scotland towards London at Stratford, the lines would have diverged, passengers wanting to join Scottish, bound services could do so it Stratford, but London bound international, and domestic , would still operate, via a chord line,

Once the main route is operating, then a spur to Birmingham, and other destinations, could be looked into, but for me the main idea of the high-speed route would be as an international route, connecting European capitals, that's not to say of course that domestic services couldn't operate over it, but I would have ensured the main route is operating first, before adding branches to the trunk route.

I reckon if BR's original Kings X underground international station was built, it would've been fairly straightforward to start any new north-south high-speed line as an extension of the CTRL. Connections to the WCML and ECML were planned, so new high-speed lines could've been built off the international spur line before reaching the existing lines. How that would actually look in practice is hard to tell, but it might've been an incentive to extend high-speed rail beyond London.

 

[NCT]

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.

HS2's design philosophy is more like the LGV network than the Shinkansen.

A New Street through / Curzon/Moor Street terminate arrangement matches network configurations in Amsterdam/Milan. Worrying about Wolverhampton is like worrying about Haarlem. This is heuristics - based on my experiences of interacting with business cases, anything up to 'if it's good enough for [insert major European city] it's good enough for [insert equivalent but struggling British city]', you get pretty good BCRs. Beyond that BCRs start to plummet.

As for the perceived London-centricity - tax raising policies don't win elections in Britain, and if we accept that then we accept Treasury supremacy. If places outside of London and South East oppose nice things then the consequence is simply they won't have nice things. Nobody else is going to cough up to give them 'even nicer things' - they are not on the menu.

At least the Euston tunnels are happening - and Euston station is a matter of when not if. Recent noises from Hendy about future proofing Euston is positive. Some form of Phase 2a is more likely than not. Even if just restricted to WCML traffic HS2 is poised to handle 10tph, making it one of the best utilised HSL in Europe. Hanover - Wurzburg deals with a measly 3tph.

 

[Topological]

Manchester Airport, Birmingham Interchange and OOC all play very important roles. Liverpool - Manchester Airport - Manchester Piccadilly is going to be a huge boost to Liverpool.

It is interesting how many routes to Edinburgh go up the East despite Edinburgh being West of Carlisle.

Major capacity issues that do not have easy solutions:

• WCML South - Solved by HS2 (8tph)
• ECML South - Solved by HS2 (2 tph) and Y shape (+ 2tph to Leeds)
• Birmingham New Street - Solved by Curzon Street (6tph)
• Manchester-Stockport - Solved by HS2 (5tph)
• Leeds - Solved by HS2 Y (3tph)
• Manchester Castlefield Corridor - Needs Liverpool HS NPR (2tph + removal of 2tph conflicts with Chat Moss - Victoria)
• Sheffield North - Solved by HS2 Y (3tph)

There are probably more. I do not think that York or Newcastle have such issues (York needs its approaches working on, but has the land).

I do say Solved, but certainly HS2 takes a major flow off each one. I cannot see another plan that achieves all that.

 

[Shrop]

What would I do differently, first, I would have built it straight after HS1was completed, as an extension to HS1, direct to Scotland, to join up with continental services, starting construction from Scotland towards London at Stratford, the lines would have diverged, passengers wanting to join Scottish, bound services could do so it Stratford, but London bound international, and domestic , would still operate, via a chord line,

Once the main route is operating, then a spur to Birmingham, and other destinations, could be looked into, but for me the main idea of the high-speed route would be as an international route, connecting European capitals, that's not to say of course that domestic services couldn't operate over it, but I would have ensured the main route is operating first, before adding branches to the trunk route.

I quite like some of the principles of this. I'm not convinced that the link to Europe should have been the main idea, especially given the hurdles that Schengen involves, but neither should the HS1-HS2 link have been dismissed.
I agree that there would have been merit in focusing on Scotland first, and building south from there, with spurs to Birmingham and Manchester following closely after.
With hindsight, a basic fundamental should always have been something to guarantee that the main scheme was completed without risk of a Sunak-sabotage, or similar.
And the only way to guarantee this would have been if the final link was at the London end.

 

[FMerrymon]

East Midlands Hub is not ideal, but it's a reasonable compromise compared to trying to serve both Derby and Nottingham. Making sure that the connecting transport links are as good as possible is what would make EMH work, i.e. frequent electric regional trains, frequent trams and good buses and active travel connections.

The local plan was excellent and that's what set it apart from East Mids Parkway. Then you had the opportunity for development around it and at Long Eaton. Those frequent regional services would have meant almost an East Midlands metro if you could get 4 trains an hour or more to EMH with each changing potential.

It's a great idea on paper, but in practice I think it would've just been a duplicate of EM Parkway station. The vast majority people from Derby/Nottingham wouldn't change trains heading to London even if it meant a faster journey - they would take the direct MML service to St Pancras instead, which would not be a problem if the MML wasn't over capacity and unelectrified - but alas it is. Maybe the London-Sheffield traffic going over to HS2 would allow for more MML Derby/Nottinghams, but it still doesn't leave EM Hub with that much of a use. Perhaps I could add to my list of adjustments I'd make that the HS2 eastern leg should've been designed to be used by NE-SW CrossCountry services too, as then EM Hub as purely an M1 parkway but with direct trains to Bristol, Leeds etc would make a lot of sense.

Depends where they are coming from and going to - for example, there is a lot of activity in West Nottingham around Beeston with the university, boots research, QMC, quicker to get the tram to Toton than the city centre. Additionally, OOC for GWR/Thames Valley may have been an easier option than crossing via the underground. In some of the studies for released capacity, Nottingham is also shown to have a direct Kings Cross service via Grantham and Peterborough, so there would have been other options plus the additional connecivity to the intermediate stations. Derby would continue to have a fast service via Leicester, just without going on to Sheffield, so yes, more seats. For places like Leeds/York/Newcastle it was going to be a lot quicker. Leeds would have been 5 trains an hour taking 27 mins. I wouldnt have bothered running cross country on it, changing at OOC or Birmingham CS would have provided an alternative, faster service, freeing up cross country to do what it needs to do.

It was compromise, but a good one with far more potential than parkway.

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

What about Ebbsfleet-Stratford-Stansted-Milton Keynes and follow the M1? Stratford, not Old Oak, then becomes the major hub for Outer London.

The government really wanted Old Oak for good reason - the redevelopment opportunities like what happened for Stafford, the connectivity to Heathrow, GWR, Elizabeth line and others. Its an excellent site. The mayor's plan revolves around 5 major hubs- Old Oak, Stratford, Euston St Pancras, Lewisham and Clapham Junction.

 

[Austriantrain]

HS2's design philosophy is more like the LGV network than the Shinkansen.

A New Street through / Curzon/Moor Street terminate arrangement matches network configurations in Amsterdam/Milan. Worrying about Wolverhampton is like worrying about Haarlem. This is heuristics - based on my experiences of interacting with business cases, anything up to 'if it's good enough for [insert major European city] it's good enough for [insert equivalent but struggling British city]', you get pretty good BCRs. Beyond that BCRs start to plummet.

As for the perceived London-centricity - tax raising policies don't win elections in Britain, and if we accept that then we accept Treasury supremacy. If places outside of London and South East oppose nice things then the consequence is simply they won't have nice things. Nobody else is going to cough up to give them 'even nicer things' - they are not on the menu.

The problem is that in a democracy, things don't work that way. See Brexit, see Reform UK, see Trump ("Hillbilly elegy"!), see Le Pen, see Kickl (in Austria) etc. Unfortunately, mainstream parties still don't get the lesson and treat their constituencies like a profit center in an international company (and no, I don't mean for a second that Wolverhampton needs the same investement as London. But it does need enough to not feel third (or fourth) class, while still working and paying taxes.) Obviously, support for major projects will not materialize if a large part of the population (and quite justifiedly) sees that they do not profit at all.

Apart from that, as far as I am aware, neither Phase2a nor phase 2b got cancelled because of local opposition (rather to the contrary, where there was much opposition - phase1 - everything has been done to mitigate it, with the consequence that it became unaffordable, and then the other phases got cancelled - to a general shrug, because where they would have gone, people couldn't see how things would be better for them - and are already used to being let down. I could give examples from my own country and elsewhere too).

And before you say so: I *am* aware that all those populist parties which seem about to be swept into power will not do anything better. It is just that, at least in part, it could have been avoided.

EDIT: It is all well and good to compare it with Amsterdam/Milan, and you would surely find other examples. I do see a difference when it's newly built though.

 

[Shrop]

The problem is that in a democracy, things don't work that way. See Brexit, see Reform UK, see Trump ("Hillbilly elegy"!), see Le Pen, see Kickl (in Austria) etc. Unfortunately, mainstream parties still don't get the lesson and treat their constituencies like a profit center in an international company (and no, I don't mean for a second that Wolverhampton needs the same investement as London. But it does need enough to not feel third (or fourth) class, while still working and paying taxes.) Obviously, support for major projects will not materialize if a large part of the population (and quite justifiedly) sees that they do not profit at all.

Apart from that, as far as I am aware, neither Phase2a nor phase 2b got cancelled because of local opposition (rather to the contrary, where there was much opposition - phase1 - everything has been done to mitigate it, with the consequence that it became unaffordable, and then the other phases got cancelled - to a general shrug, because where they would have gone, people couldn't see how things would be better for them - and are already used to being let down. I could give examples from my own country and elsewhere too).

And before you say so: I *am* aware that all those populist parties which seem about to be swept into power will not do anything better. It is just that, at least in part, it could have been avoided.

So the question is then, what have we learned from the way that HS2 has gone? How could it have been designed and managed in a way that would have stood a much better chance of success (in the public eye) rather than the hugely costly shambles it is seen as by most people now?

 

[Bald Rick]

This has all been a fascinating discussion, almost entirely focused on the route in strategic terms.

Let’s be clear, the route in terms of London - Birmingham - Manchester, with a projection of services to the Scotland central belt was absolutely right. It is, and will remain, the economic spine of the country, it has the most congestion on all long distances modes, and by any analysis (of which there has been much, for 20 years+ for HS2, and for 20 years before that for rail and road upgrade proposals). Anyone who wants to change that needs to set out why linking the 3 largest centres of economic activity in the country is the wrong thing to do.

The precise detail of the route, alignment, amount of tunnelling etc, well that has all been decided by democractic principles and process. Anyone who wants to change that is therefore wanting to change how such things are decided in a democracy.


The design elements I would change are parts of the engineering specification, and the contracting arrangements.

An example of the first is the maximum amount of settlement permitted over certain timeframes for the trace formation. AIUI this is the most stringent for any main civil engineering contracts let in this country and much tighter than for HSR in europe.

The issues of the contracting arrangements have been well documented elsewhere, but there’s no doubt in my mind that this has driven cost and timescale through risk aversion.

 

[stuu]

I would be interested to know how much extra the vast amounts of landscaping through open countryside to hide the line from view have added to the cost. And who thought it was a good idea

 

[Bald Rick]

And who thought it was a good idea

See the second para of the post above.