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

[Austriantrain]

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.

I don't want this to become a political discussion, so I won't say any more than this: Following democratic process is no automatic recipe for a good result, nor does it make a democratic outcome immune to criticism. That would be a complete misrepresentation of what democracy is about.

 

[AlexSJW]

Phase 2a nor phase 2b got cancelled because of local opposition

The poorly designed railway was cancelled because of multiple attacks from all sides and types. Phase 1 was retained because some construction in the south was advanced. It all could have been cancelled except retain the London to Aylesbury section which was advanced running it onto an upgraded Chiltern line taking the Birmingham and West Mids trains off the WCML improving capacity. Also used as a commuter line from Aylesbury to London.

 

[Shrop]

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.

Our democratic principles and processes must be partly to blame for what HS2 has become. We are a country whose politicians are too often beholden to a media which is headline grabbing and ill informed, and that same media carries too much influence with the public.
Then we have different political parties which have different views, and yet all of this is part of our democratic process, complete with the very significant swings of opinion and changes of policy.
At the root of it all are processes which are often exceptionally cumbersome, time consuming and vastly expensive, and yet these handicaps seem to happen irrespective of which political party is in Government!
I could talk about the route of HS2 but I'll come back to that in a bit ...

 

[eldomtom2]

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.

But planning processes aren't identical between democratic countries, so proposing to change the planning process isn't necessarily proposing to make it less democratic.

 

[The Planner]

The poorly designed railway was cancelled because of multiple attacks from all sides and types. Phase 1 was retained because some construction in the south was advanced. It all could have been cancelled except retain the London to Aylesbury section which was advanced running it onto an upgraded Chiltern line taking the Birmingham and West Mids trains off the WCML improving capacity. Also used as a commuter line from Aylesbury to London.

That would have removed 2tph off the WCML as you would likely keep the Avanti stopper service.

 

[NCT]

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.

I don't particularly want a political discussion either. I'll just say:
- There's a level of tax take beyond which the British population will not entertain.
- The Liz Truss episode shows what happens when a country loses its fiscal credibility.

Europe's period of greatest progress was when it consistently elected centrist governments that delivered strong technocratic governance. From what I've seen appeasement has not been effective at containing the rise of the populists.

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).

Appeasement hasn't worked.

Don't get me wrong - Sunak bears the majority responsibility for cancelling Phase 2. However, by that point it became clear that HS2's problem was it was becoming too expensive. Rather than unifying to protect HS2 plans as they were, northern leaders were divided and wanting different ways of making HS2 more expensive. When they finally complained about HS2's cancelling, my sympathies were limited.

Compare and contrast
- London took Old Oak Common as proposed
- Birmingham accepted the pragmatic solution and proposed a very sensible low-ish cost Midlands Rail Hub
- Manchester insisted on an underground Piccadilly.

Which cities got all, some, and none of HS2?

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.

If non-appeasement methods don't work, then sometimes the outcome of 'fvck around and find out' cannot be avoided. Sometimes people will only learn the hard way - and that's only a natural outcome of people exercising their democratic choices.

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.

The Dutch and Italians were new once too, and in fact many components were new very recently. Netherlands uses rationalisation as justification for new infrastructure. We discussed that trying to run through services at Milano Centrale didn't work - in normal European fiscal environments, discipline is needed and trying to have your cake and eat it too has consequences.

The problem is much of this country operates on 'direct train brain'. Politicians aren't brave enough / technocrats not empowered enough to foster a 'timetable brain' in their citizens and customers.

At the end of the day, somewhere with lower aggregate tax rates than the Netherlands, lower productivity than the Netherlands, and greater structural project cost pressures than the Netherlands, ain't gonna have a higher specc'd railway than the Netherlands.

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.

Agree with all of this.

 

[Bald Rick]

But planning processes aren't identical between democratic countries, so proposing to change the planning process isn't necessarily proposing to make it less democratic.

fair point, albeit the principles are much the same in our democratically elected neighbours. In principle:
- initial consultation
- statutory consultation
- testing of the proposals in detail in public
- decision by a Government body

In the UK we tend to do a second consultation before the statutory, as a “you said, we did”. Adds about 8-12 months on a big project, but usually removes a lot of objectors, and you often get that time back in the public inquiry stage.

 

[NCT]

Also it is not correct to say Wolverhampton doesn't benefit from HS2.

Just taking HS2 modelling assumptions and 'Dutchifying' the proposed quantum of trains into a timetable, there'd be 4-6tph fast trains between Wolverhampton and Birmingham interchange. Birmingham Interchange - London is planned at an almost turn-up-and-go frequency.

This is materially better than the existing generalised journey time.

 

[FMerrymon]

However, by that point it became clear that HS2's problem was it was becoming too expensive. Rather than unifying to protect HS2 plans as they were, northern leaders were divided and wanting different ways of making HS2 more expensive. When they finally complained about HS2's cancelling, my sympathies were limited.

Although that bit wasn't cancelled and the hybrid bill retained. It was the cheapest and easiest bit to build that they cancelled and then rushed to sell the land.

 

[WAO]

My take on HS2 is that it was conceived as an all-or-nothing project, divorced and independent of the existing and comprehensive railway, really the GCR, revived and straightened.

It had no efficient break points where partial completion would work. It should have been a jig-saw project, completed piece by piece with early benefits from each element put in place.

This is not disparaging the ideal of a 400km/hr London - Scotland LGV, just acceptance of the political and economic limitations of the UK.

WAO

 

[Shrop]

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.

Further to my post yesterday about the democratics (#93), here is a summary of what I believe HS2 Phasing should have been, with reasoning following:-

Phase 1 – Birmingham-Manchester (or Leeds – see below)

Phases 2 and 3 - Birmingham-London-HS1 and Birmingham-Leeds (or Manchester). Priority order of these to depend upon funding, since the latter would be far cheaper but arguably less needed.

Phase 4 – Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle

Phase 5 – Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow

Following from what #Bald Rick has said, the route to serve Manchester and ultimately the central Scotland belt is absolutely right. Serving Birmingham is right too, but not in the way it was done.

The biggest problem with HS2 is that it was designed with Phase 1 running London-Birmingham, with Phases 2a and 2b being entirely dependent upon Phase 1. This has completely dictated the financing, which is exactly why Phases 2a and 2b have collapsed.

Phase 1 should have run right through to Manchester or Leeds, anything less was always vulnerable to being terminated. If the concern was that this was too much of a long length to be undertaken as Phase 1, then Phase 1 should have been Birmingham to Manchester (or Leeds).

These northern sections have always been by far the most beneficial in terms of cost, ie. hugely less per mile than Birmingham-London. Additionally, in terms of time savings Birmingham-Leeds (for example) was to be 45m vs the present time of almost 2 hours, whereas Birmingham-London was just 70 minutes some years ago, and will have not much more than 20 minutes shaved off that by HS2.

Then there is the long standing promise of rebalancing the country, which requires benefits for the north, not yet another London-centric scheme which the present Phase 1 undoubtedly is.

Before anyone shouts about capacity relief for WCML, this is exactly where the problem is rooted. HS2 should always have been seen as a scheme to benefit the UK as a whole, but in practice it has been side-tracked and developed as something to relieve WCML first and foremost, with everything else playing second fiddle to this.

If HS2 had run through to Manchester as Phase 1, this would have provided sufficient relief to WCML anyway. If it had run just Birmingham-Manchester as Phase 1, then you can be certain that the Birmingham-London section would not have been scrapped, and indeed would have followed soon after.

If WCML south of Birmingham has such chronic capacity issues that capacity relief is needed more immediately, then that should have been justified on a stand-alone basis, or at most to tie in with an HS2 starting with Birmingham-Manchester, it should never have been allowed to dominate a scheme for the whole of the UK.

If it’s just about capacity between London and Birmingham, then there has always been scope to upgrade the existing Chiltern Line. If (even worse) it’s about capacity between Coventry and Birmingham (which has been cited by some as being of paramount importance), then this really is a paltry reason to hold sway over a national scheme.

So to conclude, with hindsight (or in advance, as some said many years ago but were shouted down), Phase 1 should have been Birmingham-Manchester (or Leeds). Birmingham-London could have followed closely but putting it first was always likely to be a disaster.

 

[SynthD]

That would have removed 2tph off the WCML as you would likely keep the Avanti stopper service.

And waited behind Chiltern and CrossCountry from the north end of Banbury onwards.

Before anyone shouts about capacity relief for WCML, this is exactly where the problem is rooted. HS2 should always have been seen as a scheme to benefit the UK as a whole, but in practice it has been side-tracked and developed as something to relieve WCML first and foremost, with everything else playing second fiddle to this.

How have you split one thing into two? Relieving the current tracks with new tracks wherever they are can only most benefit the congested area.

 

[Austriantrain]

I don't particularly want a political discussion either. I'll just say:
- There's a level of tax take beyond which the British population will not entertain.
- The Liz Truss episode shows what happens when a country loses its fiscal credibility.

Europe's period of greatest progress was when it consistently elected centrist governments that delivered strong technocratic governance. From what I've seen appeasement has not been effective at containing the rise of the populists.

I know what you mean. I am not going to say I am right - it is an opinion, and even if I were to present it as fact, I wouldn't have a way to prove it.

OTOH, if the overall HS2 project had been really workable, phase 1 would by now be almost ready and phase 2 currently being built. However technically perfect the project might have been... it hasn't worked. So I think it fair to say it was not a successful project, even though all the planning behind it might have been sound or even perfect (no, not arguing with the Y-shape either, makes perfect sense). The best plans are useless if they then become undone.

- Birmingham accepted the pragmatic solution and proposed a very sensible low-ish cost Midlands Rail Hub

Is it very sensible? The upfront cost is lowish of course, but it does barely solve most capacity issues and will not by itself help in increasing frequence (just split it around two different stations, which I consider to be a bad idea - I respect that your opinion is different). I am not sure at all that accepting the pragmatic solution was the better choice, also considering that Birmingham will at some point have very quick journeys to OOC and the Elizabeth line, but not much else. And I fail to see that it was Manchester's insistence on an underground Piccadilly that sank the north-western branch - that was all Rishi, who BTW could easily have decided to build to Crewe for the moment (I am not a British constitutional lawyer, but quite sure that it is in the purview of a PM to bring an amendend bill into the Commons.

The problem is much of this country operates on 'direct train brain'. Politicians aren't brave enough / technocrats not empowered enough to foster a 'timetable brain' in their citizens and customers.

Yeah, wondering about the planned Nuneaton chord, which would bring direct Coventry - Leicester trains bypassing Nuneaton and its connections, clogging the lines with short trains in probably unneccessary frequency. The British penchant for miniature trains is quite baffling seen from outside.

It is not an absolute though and to my view, you too readily discard the value of direct trains. I do know that there are trade-offs to be made, but they cannot always be one-sided. Having every long-distance passenger change at Birmingham (maybe even walk from New Street to Curzon Street) because it is more efficient to break the trains there is - I believe - not a good idea. Technically, it might be more efficient, but - again - the railways lose the support they will always need to justify public expenditure. And I don't believe you can "foster" a mind the way you say. You can only lead by example, in this case having a couple of regions and their timetables well reorganised, so that the country sees the benefit. Spending lots of money in a way that only a small minority benefits (and in the case of HS2 phase 1 as now planned, it is really only WCML London commuters, and very slightly the Coventry corridor) will not work.

 

[Mgameing123]

Scrap the Chiltern Tunnel. Made the project cost more than it needed to.

 

[Austriantrain]

Scrap the Chiltern Tunnel. Made the project cost more than it needed to.

A bit late for that?

 

[Mgameing123]

A bit late for that?

Well you asking for an alternate reality right? My alternative reality would be Chiltern Tunnel scrapped. HS2 could’ve been a scenic ride if it wasn’t for Shanon and Greg with their huge mansion.

 

[pr1]

Well you asking for an alternate reality right? My alternative reality would be Chiltern Tunnel scrapped. HS2 could’ve been a scenic ride if it wasn’t for Shanon and Greg with their huge mansion.

I don't want to reopen too much of this debate, just to say that with the worsening climate, putting so much in tunnel might work out in its favour!

 

[Bald Rick]

If HS2 had run through to Manchester as Phase 1, this would have provided sufficient relief to WCML anyway.

You need to explain that further. ie how a fast line from Birmingham to Manchester provides relief to the WCML and Branches where it is most congested, namely Euston to Rugby, and Coventry to Brimingham.

If WCML south of Birmingham has such chronic capacity issues that capacity relief is needed more immediately, then that should have been justified on a stand-alone basis

It was, it is called HS2 Phase 1.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

These northern sections have always been by far the most beneficial in terms of cost, ie. hugely less per mile than Birmingham-London. Additionally, in terms of time savings Birmingham-Leeds (for example) was to be 45m vs the present time of almost 2 hours, whereas Birmingham-London was just 70 minutes some years ago, and will have not much more than 20 minutes shaved off that by HS2.

This is disingenous. Phase 1 is not just for London - Birmingham, and never has been.

The standard London to Birmingham time is 1h17, and that is a recent phenomenon, it used to be 1h22(ish) until December 2022. 1h10 was achieved in one direction by one train, Mon-Fri only. You can add a further 2-3 minutes on all these times to represent median punctuality.

HS2 from Euston to Birmingham Curzon St will be 49 minutes. Median punctuality will be bang on time.

So 49 mins vs 79 mins today. That’s 30 mins saving or 38%.

And there is a similar journey time saving London - Manchester / Crewe / Liverpool / Warrington / Wigan / Preston etc.

There are also a lot, lot more passengers travelling London - Birmingham than Birmingham - Leeds and Birmingham - Manchester combined, and there always will be. Let alone all the other passengers that benefit from the Phase journey time reductions.

So yes, Phase 1 was first for a very good reason: a) it provided capacity relief where it was needed most urgently, and b) it provided by far the greatest amount of benefits in both capacity and time savings, thereby beenfitting the greatest number of people.

 

[NCT]

I know what you mean. I am not going to say I am right - it is an opinion, and even if I were to present it as fact, I wouldn't have a way to prove it.

OTOH, if the overall HS2 project had been really workable, phase 1 would by now be almost ready and phase 2 currently being built. However technically perfect the project might have been... it hasn't worked. So I think it fair to say it was not a successful project, even though all the planning behind it might have been sound or even perfect (no, not arguing with the Y-shape either, makes perfect sense). The best plans are useless if they then become undone.

Consider the UK had just had Brexit and the most unstable and hapless government in generations, it feels a bit unfair to lay all the blame at HS2's door. In all likelihood it would have had a better time under more stable and benign political leadership. HS2's cancelling is a prime example of "all those populist parties which seem about to be swept into power will not do anything better." - Britain has already 'fvcked around and found out' - let that be a lesson.

If HS2 is failing, then so is Rail Baltica (should have opened in 2019), Basque Y, so on and so forth. Crossrail was not a successful project until it opened, and almost immediately achieved operational break-even.

Euston is happening. Some form of Handsacre and/or Phase 2a will happen. HS2 will be handling in the region of 10tph. Success is measured in bodies and revenue. HS2 will be one of the, if not the revenue densest (revenue earned per track km of infrastructure), HSL in Europe.

The Dutch reportedly hate NS. What's important is that objectively theirs is one of the best railways in Europe in terms of bodies carried and revenues earned.

Is it very sensible? The upfront cost is lowish of course, but it does barely solve most capacity issues and will not by itself help in increasing frequence (just split it around two different stations, which I consider to be a bad idea - I respect that your opinion is different). I am not sure at all that accepting the pragmatic solution was the better choice, also considering that Birmingham will at some point have very quick journeys to OOC and the Elizabeth line, but not much else. And I fail to see that it was Manchester's insistence on an underground Piccadilly that sank the north-western branch - that was all Rishi, who BTW could easily have decided to build to Crewe for the moment (I am not a British constitutional lawyer, but quite sure that it is in the purview of a PM to bring an amendend bill into the Commons.

The choices were ever something or nothing, and never something or everything.

HS2 (full Y) doubles inter-city frequencies in all relevant inter-city directions by preserving classic frequencies and running the same frequency on top on new infrastructure - how is that not solve capacity issues? The current capacity issue is that Stoke and Manchester passengers share the same train - HS2 puts them on separate trains. That's like saying HSL Zuid barely solves Netherland's capacity issues.

Yeah, wondering about the planned Nuneaton chord, which would bring direct Coventry - Leicester trains bypassing Nuneaton and its connections, clogging the lines with short trains in probably unneccessary frequency. The British penchant for miniature trains is quite baffling seen from outside.

It is not an absolute though and to my view, you too readily discard the value of direct trains. I do know that there are trade-offs to be made, but they cannot always be one-sided. Having every long-distance passenger change at Birmingham (maybe even walk from New Street to Curzon Street) because it is more efficient to break the trains there is - I believe - not a good idea. Technically, it might be more efficient, but - again - the railways lose the support they will always need to justify public expenditure. And I don't believe you can "foster" a mind the way you say. You can only lead by example, in this case having a couple of regions and their timetables well reorganised, so that the country sees the benefit. Spending lots of money in a way that only a small minority benefits (and in the case of HS2 phase 1 as now planned, it is really only WCML London commuters, and very slightly the Coventry corridor) will not work.

I think you are unfairly misrepresenting my position somewhat. There would still be plenty of cross-Birmingham direct trains, just not between all directions. The network design philosophy is entirely in line with Utrecht. A cross-Birmingham journey is fundamentally no different to Maastricht - Groningen (requires a change) or Den Haag - Zwolle (which happens to be on an infrastructure direct route).

Everywhere-to-everywhere direct trains become exponentially more expensive to provide the denser the population pattern and the more frequent the base service pattern. Britain is base 2tph combined 4tph land. Only really the Netherlands is a comparable geography. Austria and Switzerland mostly deal with base 1tph combined 2tph.

London - Birmingham serves a catchment population bigger than the entire Westbahn (the infrastructure) catchment.

 

[Shrop]

You need to explain that further. ie how a fast line from Birmingham to Manchester provides relief to the WCML and Branches where it is most congested, namely Euston to Rugby, and Coventry to Brimingham.

You may have misunderstood. The first part of my previous post (#101) was, as stated, a summary of what followed in that post. If you read the main part of the text that followed first, it said that Phase 1 should have run through to Manchester. To paraphrase, this means "Phase 1 of the scheme as it was introduced, should have been London to Manchester". That would have relieved all of the most congested parts of WCML.

It was, it is called HS2 Phase 1.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

See my above comment.

This is disingenous. Phase 1 is not just for London - Birmingham, and never has been.

You appear to be overlooking my comment about Phase 1 as it stands, namely that it "has completely dictated the financing, which is exactly why Phases 2a and 2b have collapsed". This whole thread is about the theoretical re-design of HS2 with hindsight. Hindsight shows that Phase 1 as it is, and as I said in my previous post, led to the demise of Phases 2a and 2b. Surely with hindsight you wouldn’t want that all over again?

The standard London to Birmingham time is 1h17, and that is a recent phenomenon, it used to be 1h22(ish) until December 2022. 1h10 was achieved in one direction by one train, Mon-Fri only. You can add a further 2-3 minutes on all these times to represent median punctuality.

HS2 from Euston to Birmingham Curzon St will be 49 minutes. Median punctuality will be bang on time.

So 49 mins vs 79 mins today. That’s 30 mins saving or 38%.

That is exaggerating the benefits. We know that 70 minutes existed previously and it wasn’t a fluke, it was just making the most of the existing infrastructure and rolling stock.

And there is a similar journey time saving London - Manchester / Crewe / Liverpool / Warrington / Wigan / Preston etc.

There are also a lot, lot more passengers travelling London - Birmingham than Birmingham - Leeds and Birmingham - Manchester combined, and there always will be. Let alone all the other passengers that benefit from the Phase journey time reductions.

So yes, Phase 1 was first for a very good reason: a) it provided capacity relief where it was needed most urgently, and b) it provided by far the greatest amount of benefits in both capacity and time savings, thereby beenfitting the greatest number of people.

In summary you appear to be ignoring the points I have made, in somewhat tunnel-vision of benefitting London-Birmingham at all costs, with scant regard for the country-wide benefits that HS2 should have really been about.

The proof of the fallacy of this thinking lies in what has happened in practice. This includes the wholesale failure to rebalance the country, and the embarrassing position that rail development finds itself in, in the public eye. I believe that the UK deserves better, but this will never happen while we learn nothing from our mistakes.

 

[SynthD]

OTOH, if the overall HS2 project had been really workable, phase 1 would by now be almost ready and phase 2 currently being built. However technically perfect the project might have been... it hasn't worked. So I think it fair to say it was not a successful project, even though all the planning behind it might have been sound or even perfect (no, not arguing with the Y-shape either, makes perfect sense). The best plans are useless if they then become undone.

Workable isn't a fixed target, it moves according to the current priorities of the latest PM. The best plans don't become worse because of events outside of rail, we just see that spending is deprioritised.

This includes the wholesale failure to rebalance the country

It hasn’t opened yet. Let it take passengers before it fails a requirement it never had.

 

[Austriantrain]

Consider the UK had just had Brexit and the most unstable and hapless government in generations, it feels a bit unfair to lay all the blame at HS2's door. In all likelihood it would have had a better time under more stable and benign political leadership. HS2's cancelling is a prime example of "all those populist parties which seem about to be swept into power will not do anything better." - Britain has already 'fvcked around and found out' - let that be a lesson.

I did not lay all the blame at HS2's door. At least, that is not what I wanted to do. I consider the project mostly extremely good and did voice some issues, based on my options and my view of things, which I think would have increased the usefulness and, crucially, public support. That does not mean that you have to see it my way. The thing is that the perfect project on paper does not exist, there are always various ways to do things with their advantages and disadvantages. In the end, the ideal project is one that is fit to purpose and actually gets built. A "perfect" project on paper that never gets built is still a crayonista exercice, even though the crayon might be very sharp and very well handled. Maybe with HS2, it was tried to do too much at the same time when the country was not ready for it.

If HS2 is failing, then so is Rail Baltica (should have opened in 2019), Basque Y, so on and so forth. Crossrail was not a successful project until it opened, and almost immediately achieved operational break-even.

I don't think anybody doubts that Rail Baltica and the Basque Y have been badly mismanaged. If you understand my posts as a specific criticisim of Britain, you misunderstood. I wrote about HS2 because that is the topic here; if you look in the international section you will easily find out what I think about the Spanish way of running railways. And if you looked into Austrian forums, you would easily find my critical views about lots of things we do here (BTW, I go by the nick "highspeedtrain" there because of the IC125, which should make you see that I am not anti-British).

HS2 (full Y) doubles inter-city frequencies in all relevant inter-city directions by preserving classic frequencies and running the same frequency on top on new infrastructure - how is that not solve capacity issues?

The full Y is, for the moment, very far from being built.

A cross-Birmingham journey is fundamentally no different to Maastricht - Groningen (requires a change) or Den Haag - Zwolle (which happens to be on an infrastructure direct route).

Here, I do not agree with you at all. The whole of Netherlands is basically a "day return" network. Not so Britain. The better comparison would to ask passengers from Munich to Hamburg to change at least once or rather twice to reach their destination; or Vienna - Innsbruck/Feldkirch. Long-distance is fundamentally different from short journeys - people travel with luggage, families etc and very often - if you do not go to London - you can quite easily make the same trip by car (whereas on short distances, you often would lose too much time). While of course not every combination of origin and destination can be offered on a direct train, the most important should.

Everywhere-to-everywhere direct trains become exponentially more expensive to provide the denser the population pattern and the more frequent the base service pattern. Britain is base 2tph combined 4tph land. Only really the Netherlands is a comparable geography. Austria and Switzerland mostly deal with base 1tph combined 2tph.

The Netherlands do not have a comparable geography (IMHO). You might compare the south of England with the Netherlands; everything from the Midlands north is quite different (and that can easily be seen in that the Netherlands did not try to build a national HS network). Also, too much emphasis is put on frequency. Outside of the major conurbations, 2tph (which is what Switzerland does - not 1 tph) is almost always fine, provided you have enough capacity (meaning: if your trains run at 2 tph at maximum length - which of course in the UK will always be less than on the continent - and are overcrowded, then you should think about increasing frequence. Running 4 tph everywhere simply costs too much in terms of the infrastructure you have to provide.)

London - Birmingham serves a catchment population bigger than the entire Westbahn (the infrastructure) catchment.

I know. Which is why we did not build a 360 kph nonstop Vienna - Salzburg line.

The best case for the UK IMHO is that London - Birmingham works out well and the rest of the country will clamour for it too and politics have to follow - like it happened in France. The difference (from my perspective) is that UK/English politics is prepared to give "Not London" so very little. Unlike the French - most other cities apart from London are easily on a scale with the regional capitals of France (often bigger) and really get a very bad deal in comparison. From what I recently read, the presumption that London is the economic powerhouse of Britain and therefore needs to get almost everything doesn't hold up anymore; there is a good case to be made I think that it is the holding back of the regions that is responsible for a lot of the economic woes of Britain (whereas with us, it is overregulation, a very very bad handling of the post-pandemic economics, a complete lack of innovation and public expenditure that is unsustainable - on the railways too, BTW).

 

[NCT]

I did not lay all the blame at HS2's door. At least, that is not what I wanted to do. I consider the project mostly extremely good and did voice some issues, based on my options and my view of things, which I think would have increased the usefulness and, crucially, public support. That does not mean that you have to see it my way. The thing is that the perfect project on paper does not exist, there are always various ways to do things with their advantages and disadvantages. In the end, the ideal project is one that is fit to purpose and actually gets built. A "perfect" project on paper that never gets built is still a crayonista exercice, even though the crayon might be very sharp and very well handled. Maybe with HS2, it was tried to do too much at the same time when the country was not ready for it.

I don't think anybody doubts that Rail Baltica and the Basque Y have been badly mismanaged. If you understand my posts as a specific criticisim of Britain, you misunderstood. I wrote about HS2 because that is the topic here; if you look in the international section you will easily find out what I think about the Spanish way of running railways. And if you looked into Austrian forums, you would easily find my critical views about lots of things we do here (BTW, I go by the nick "highspeedtrain" there because of the IC125, which should make you see that I am not anti-British).

So really HS2 is within the 'typical' range of European delivery 'sh!tshows'. The 2019-2024 political environment can only be put on the 'sh!t happens' pile - it's not something any project can reasonably mitigate against.

I don't think anyone claimed HS2 to be perfect. HS2 as planned (full Y) represents the best compromise. Again, the choice is only something or nothing, not something or perfect.

Criticisms of HS2 tend to be only part of it is being built because of XYZ, and the same critics then go on to argue all of HS2 would be built if only it became more bloated and more expensive. I really struggle to see it. If HS2 started off being bloated it would have been killed off by Treasury. We'd have ended up with nothing. Something is better than nothing. Perfect does not exist - different people have polar opposite views of what constitute perfect. A society that allows perfect to be the enemy of the good is one that's lost its way.

Bald Rick is right. HS2's issues are engineering overspecification (tolerance levels) and procurement models. Some of that was politically induced (political meddling meant HS2 went to market before it was ready). Then there are other politically induced scope creep.

The full Y is, for the moment, very far from being built.

Here, I do not agree with you at all. The whole of Netherlands is basically a "day return" network. Not so Britain. The better comparison would to ask passengers from Munich to Hamburg to change at least once or rather twice to reach their destination; or Vienna - Innsbruck/Feldkirch. Long-distance is fundamentally different from short journeys - people travel with luggage, families etc and very often - if you do not go to London - you can quite easily make the same trip by car (whereas on short distances, you often would lose too much time). While of course not every combination of origin and destination can be offered on a direct train, the most important should.

The Netherlands do not have a comparable geography (IMHO). You might compare the south of England with the Netherlands; everything from the Midlands north is quite different (and that can easily be seen in that the Netherlands did not try to build a national HS network). Also, too much emphasis is put on frequency. Outside of the major conurbations, 2tph (which is what Switzerland does - not 1 tph) is almost always fine, provided you have enough capacity (meaning: if your trains run at 2 tph at maximum length - which of course in the UK will always be less than on the continent - and are overcrowded, then you should think about increasing frequence. Running 4 tph everywhere simply costs too much in terms of the infrastructure you have to provide.)

I know. Which is why we did not build a 360 kph nonstop Vienna - Salzburg line.

The 'Netherlands is a small country therefore non-applicable' line is overplayed. Most of England is a series of Dutch-geographies strung together. Birmingham - Manchester; Birmingham - Leeds - Newcastle; Liverpool - Hull axes all have Dutch settlement patterns / densities. There are a lot of Cheltenham - Birmingham - Derby or Stoke-On-Trent - Manchester - Huddersfield type potential journeys which are very Dutch. So even this tier of travel demand commands Dutch-level frequencies and train lengths in the long-run unconstrained scenario (we already kind of have the frequencies, train lengths need catching up). What HS2 (full Y) provides is so that inter-city travel (non-London) have Amsterdam - Rotterdam qualities.

Maastricht - Groningen is a longer journey time than Bristol - Leeds, even today. Under HS2 (full Y) it would be much shorter.

The best case for the UK IMHO is that London - Birmingham works out well and the rest of the country will clamour for it too and politics have to follow - like it happened in France. The difference (from my perspective) is that UK/English politics is prepared to give "Not London" so very little. Unlike the French - most other cities apart from London are easily on a scale with the regional capitals of France (often bigger) and really get a very bad deal in comparison. From what I recently read, the presumption that London is the economic powerhouse of Britain and therefore needs to get almost everything doesn't hold up anymore; there is a good case to be made I think that it is the holding back of the regions that is responsible for a lot of the economic woes of Britain (whereas with us, it is overregulation, a very very bad handling of the post-pandemic economics, a complete lack of innovation and public expenditure that is unsustainable - on the railways too, BTW).

Cities outside of L&SE have structural problems, with productivity levels far below European peers. Transport alone won't solve that - sinking capex (and ongoing subsidy) into bloated transport projects just takes money away from areas that need more immediate attention - namely skills. Build it they don't just come - despite Merseyrail and T&W metro, the respective cities are not functioning as transit-enabled high-value-added knowledge economies - the underlying skills are not there. For national transport projects, it always is the case that an acceptable BCR is achieved through high London-end marginal BCR masking a lower country end marginal BCR. This is the way non-London area get 'something'. And let's be clear, HS2 + Midlands Rail Hub would have got Birmingham a rail network on par with Amsterdam. Funding settlements more generous than that would just mean a left-wing version of Trussonomics. If those places don't know which side their bread is buttered they'll forever get nothing.

 

[Bald Rick]

You may have misunderstood. The first part of my previous post (#101) was, as stated, a summary of what followed in that post. If you read the main part of the text that followed first, it said that Phase 1 should have run through to Manchester. To paraphrase, this means "Phase 1 of the scheme as it was introduced, should have been London to Manchester".

Yes, I have misunderstood; when you wrote:

Phase 1 – Birmingham-Manchester (or Leeds – see below)

Phases 2 and 3 - Birmingham-London-HS1 and Birmingham-Leeds (or Manchester). Priority order of these to depend upon funding, since the latter would be far cheaper but arguably less needed.

I took that to mean that Phase 1 was Birmingham to Manchester (or Leeds) and Phase 2 was Birmingham to London. An easy mistake to make, forgive me.

You appear to be overlooking my comment about Phase 1 as it stands, namely that it "has completely dictated the financing, which is exactly why Phases 2a and 2b have collapsed".

The financing is exactly the same for all phases, namely taxpayers money. I don’t see how Phase 1 dictated that. And it has nothing to do with why Phase 2 has been cancelled; as I said that is entirely due to the influence of one man.

That is exaggerating the benefits. We know that 70 minutes existed previously and it wasn’t a fluke, it was just making the most of the existing infrastructure and rolling stock.

No, it wasn’t a fluke, but neither was it repeatable 2-4 times an hour, all day. It was a once a day effort; to enable it required some fairly significant timetable compromises, ie disadvantaging some other services. It is completely wrong to suggest that the 70 minute journey time is the standard to use for all London - Birmingham passengers, as only a very small fraction of them - rather fewer than 1% - experienced it.

In summary you appear to be ignoring the points I have made, in somewhat tunnel-vision of benefitting London-Birmingham at all costs

I’m not ignoring them. Some of the points you have made are just wrong. You seem to be ignoring the main point I made which is:

Phase 1 is not just for London - Birmingham, and never has been.

Phase 1 benefits a very significant majority of those making journeys on the WCML today.

 

[eldomtom2]

I don't think the high cost of HS2 is irrelevant to why it was cancelled. It made the argument that it was wasting money that could have gone on better things much more convincing to both politicians and the public.

 

[Shrop]

Yes, I have misunderstood; when you wrote:

I took that to mean that Phase 1 was Birmingham to Manchester (or Leeds) and Phase 2 was Birmingham to London. An easy mistake to make, forgive me.

The financing is exactly the same for all phases, namely taxpayers money. I don’t see how Phase 1 dictated that. And it has nothing to do with why Phase 2 has been cancelled; as I said that is entirely due to the influence of one man.

No, it wasn’t a fluke, but neither was it repeatable 2-4 times an hour, all day. It was a once a day effort; to enable it required some fairly significant timetable compromises, ie disadvantaging some other services. It is completely wrong to suggest that the 70 minute journey time is the standard to use for all London - Birmingham passengers, as only a very small fraction of them - rather fewer than 1% - experienced it.

I’m not ignoring them. Some of the points you have made are just wrong. You seem to be ignoring the main point I made which is:

Phase 1 benefits a very significant majority of those making journeys on the WCML today.

I have to say I'm quite disappointed by your responses. Perhaps you might re-read my comments and try to understand what I’ve said? Or maybe I’m just leaving my wording too open to dissection?

Either way, I guess I'm probably outnumbered by those who simply prefer HS2 like it is, even with the benefit of hindsight, and never did really want to consider any other way of doing things.

 

[London Trains]

I've got many opinions on how HS2 could've been done differently, but the most basic and glaringly obvious thing that absolutely should have been done is that Fradley to Hixon and a connection at Hixon onto the Colwich-Stone line should've been part of Phase 1.

 

[Matt P]

I personally think much of phase 1 made sense. My main observation about HS2 overall is that it seemed designed as a largely stand alone rail project rather than an enhancement to the existing. New stations in Birmingham, and Leeds are what stood out to me most in that respect.

I recognise that the new stations were a response to capacity issues plus a design requirement for 400m long trains. The question for me is whether designing around 400m trains was needed. Again, I recognise a desire to maximise capacity and to future proof HS2. However, in European countries with HSL and 400m long trains, the service intercity/high speed service frequencies don't seem as intense as some of the UK's intercity service frequencies, particularly Euston to Birmingham and Manchester.

So, did HS2 need to be designed for 400m trains? Or could it have instead been designed to simply take train lengths similar to existing 11 car Pendelinos off existing congested sections of the WCML. This wouldn't address station capacity in Birmingham, but could tunnels to take some local traffic and (subject to electrification) Cross Country services away from the existing New Street have delivered capacity whilst maintaining New Street as a hub station and more importantly, better long distance, regional and local connectivity than Curzon Street will deliver? Obviously similar cross-rail projects would likely be needed in Manchester and Leeds.

Did HS2 need to be the full Y? Instead, should there have been a combination of HS2 between London and the Midlands as a WCML bypass, plus a number of the projects identified in the Strategic Alternatives, such as an Alexandra Palace-Biggleswade ECML bypass, four tracking of two track sections of ECML. I appreciate HS2 was a gold standard and intended to deliver more than a series of incremental upgrades. The concerns about disruption from upgrades was also a concern, particularly after a collective finger burning with the WCML upgrade. However, we aren't going to get the gold standard so only some of the full HS2 benefits will now be realised.

Some of the Strategic Alternative projects may not have attracted the same level of opposition so may have been seen through to completion. The benefits of these plus a new London to Midlands line might cumulatively have been far greater than the current truncated HS2.

Essentially, HS2 was an attempt at revolution. I think a more incrementalist approach might have been wiser.

 

[Shrop]

I personally think much of phase 1 made sense. My main observation about HS2 overall is that it seemed designed as a largely stand alone rail project rather than an enhancement to the existing. New stations in Birmingham, and Leeds are what stood out to me most in that respect.

I recognise that the new stations were a response to capacity issues plus a design requirement for 400m long trains. The question for me is whether designing around 400m trains was needed. Again, I recognise a desire to maximise capacity and to future proof HS2. However, in European countries with HSL and 400m long trains, the service intercity/high speed service frequencies don't seem as intense as some of the UK's intercity service frequencies, particularly Euston to Birmingham and Manchester.

So, did HS2 need to be designed for 400m trains? Or could it have instead been designed to simply take train lengths similar to existing 11 car Pendelinos off existing congested sections of the WCML. This wouldn't address station capacity in Birmingham, but could tunnels to take some local traffic and (subject to electrification) Cross Country services away from the existing New Street have delivered capacity whilst maintaining New Street as a hub station and more importantly, better long distance, regional and local connectivity than Curzon Street will deliver? Obviously similar cross-rail projects would likely be needed in Manchester and Leeds.

Did HS2 need to be the full Y? Instead, should there have been a combination of HS2 between London and the Midlands as a WCML bypass, plus a number of the projects identified in the Strategic Alternatives, such as an Alexandra Palace-Biggleswade ECML bypass, four tracking of two track sections of ECML. I appreciate HS2 was a gold standard and intended to deliver more than a series of incremental upgrades. The concerns about disruption from upgrades was also a concern, particularly after a collective finger burning with the WCML upgrade. However, we aren't going to get the gold standard so only some of the full HS2 benefits will now be realised.

Some of the Strategic Alternative projects may not have attracted the same level of opposition so may have been seen through to completion. The benefits of these plus a new London to Midlands line might cumulatively have been far greater than the current truncated HS2.

Essentially, HS2 was an attempt at revolution. I think a more incrementalist approach might have been wiser.

So you, and many others it seems, see the main function of HS2 as capacity relief for WCML between Birmingham and London.
Northwards from Birmingham was very much second fiddle to that, and was only to be even entertained after London-Birmingham was set in stone.
As for rebalancing the country, affording improvements to the economy for The North, that was purely an extra, and perhaps even just incidental benefit so long as London-Birmingham came first.
I must admit I'd seen the potential for HS2 as more of a project for the whole of the UK, including connecting into HS1 as part of it, but I do appear to be outnumbered on this forum.

 

[SynthD]

So, did HS2 need to be designed for 400m trains? Or could it have instead been designed to simply take train lengths similar to existing 11 car Pendelinos off existing congested sections of the WCML. This wouldn't address station capacity in Birmingham, but could tunnels to take some local traffic and (subject to electrification) Cross Country services away from the existing New Street have delivered capacity whilst maintaining New Street as a hub station and more importantly, better long distance, regional and local connectivity than Curzon Street will deliver?

HS2 is aiming bigger and longer, to give the north and Scotland more. It’s more important to take London-Scotland air traffic than the benefits of 200m trains. What do you mean by take traffic away from New St while maintaining it as a hub? NewMoorCurzon Streets will be a similar concentration to EustonStCross, with a tram and a better pedestrian route.

Did HS2 need to be the full Y? Instead, should there have been a combination of HS2 between London and the Midlands as a WCML bypass, plus a number of the projects identified in the Strategic Alternatives, such as an Alexandra Palace-Biggleswade ECML bypass, four tracking of two track sections of ECML.

That demands more of King’s Cross than there is room for. Euston has expanded sideways, the cheapest site clearance of all the north facing termini?

I think a more incrementalist approach might have been wiser

Lower value for money.