Price and time saved difference between HS2 at 225mph and 185mph

[Hadders]

It's worth bearing on mind a couple of things when it comes to this sort of thing:

• Changes to the specification at this late stage are likely to result in additional costs
• HS2 isn't being built for what is needed today, but to be future proofed for the next 50-100 years. Going for a lower speed today locks that in forever - is that what we really want?

 

[The Ham]

It's worth bearing on mind a couple of things when it comes to this sort of thing:

• Changes to the specification at this late stage are likely to result in additional costs
• HS2 isn't being built for what is needed today, but to be future proofed for the next 50-100 years. Going for a lower speed today locks that in forever - is that what we really want?

Indeed, it's why the alternatives to HS2 were always a bad idea, in that they only looked at capacity to (say) 2040. Which in 2008 looked a long way off, but it's now not so that far away if it's going to take 10+ years to build infrastructure.

I've highlighted the ninety of coaches needed for HS2 it's broadly the same as the current mix of 9/11 coach trains.

However, how about if we lengthened all trains on the existing services to 11 coaches, that would lift the number from 145 to 165.

Then if we lifted it still further so it was 12 coach trains that number goes up further to 180 coaches.

Whilst that gives you an extra circa 24% extra coaches providing you a bit more than that in capacity uplift (note IEP gave GWR +18% in seating capacity over their HST's and many of those can be rather busy) you've then got to find stabling capacity for 24% more coaches and maintenance facilities to deal with 12 coach trains.

Which would likely mean a lot of the same sort of investment as HS2 would have had to deliver with it's depots but without many of the other advantages of the scheme.

Yes you could have gained a bit more by removing more first class and going for trains like the 80x's, however they would have all the same issues about lower track speeds as any other non tilting train which is a criticism of HS2 services running north of the HS2 tracks - only this would be the whole way.

 

[Krokodil]

HS2 vehicles will be longer than Pendolino vehicles though, and Pendolinos aren't particularly efficient seating-wise.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Taking the experience of HS1 where the check-in deadline at St Pancras is 30 minutes before train departure, with a recommendation to be there 40-60 minute in advance, I wonder what the arrangement will be at Euston for HS2?

If it's similar to St Pancras you could be passing Rugby on the WCML before the HS2 train you waited for left Euston!

 

[Shrop]

It's worth bearing on mind a couple of things when it comes to this sort of thing:

• Changes to the specification at this late stage are likely to result in additional costs
• HS2 isn't being built for what is needed today, but to be future proofed for the next 50-100 years. Going for a lower speed today locks that in forever - is that what we really want?

Forgive my scepticism but the terms "HS2" and "future-proofed" in the same sentence seems a bit strange.

HS2 (in some form) was needed many years ago, but instead of progressing it quickly, it's been decimated. There's nothing looking hopeful to extend it, or to advance any other new long distance railways in the UK for a great many more years after HS2 is eventually completed in its much reduced form.

So although I'm not arguing against any higher speeds, a great deal needs to be done to convince the UK population and its leaders about the merits of rail advances altogether.

 

[Sorcerer]

Taking the experience of HS1 where the check-in deadline at St Pancras is 30 minutes before train departure, with a recommendation to be there 40-60 minute in advance, I wonder what the arrangement will be at Euston for HS2?

If it's similar to St Pancras you could be passing Rugby on the WCML before your HS2 train departed!

HS2 won't need that because there is no border control. Spain is the only European example of a high-speed rail network having security checks before travel, and even though that has some historical precedent (terrorism) it's not exactly considered a good thing today, and so there would be no reason for HS2 to have them, especially for the reason you cited at the end.

 

[Hadders]

Taking the experience of HS1 where the check-in deadline at St Pancras is 30 minutes before train departure, with a recommendation to be there 40-60 minute in advance, I wonder what the arrangement will be at Euston for HS2?

If it's similar to St Pancras you could be passing Rugby on the WCML before your HS2 train departed!

Eurostar is an international service. You don’t need to arrive early to travel on the domestic services that use HS1.

Forgive my scepticism but the terms "HS2" and "future-proofed" in the same sentence seems a bit strange.

HS2 (in some form) was needed many years ago, but instead of progressing it quickly, it's been decimated. There's nothing looking hopeful to extend it, or to advance any other new long distance railways in the UK for a great many more years after HS2 is eventually completed in its much reduced form.

So although I'm not arguing against any higher speeds, a great deal needs to be done to convince the UK population and its leaders about the merits of rail advances altogether.

The problem we have in the UK is that a significant number of people always say large new infrastructure projects aren’t needed. For example in my lifetime we’ve had:

The Jubilee Line Extension
Channel Tunnel and HS1
Elizabeth Line
HS2

All of the above are huge projects, lasting decades between the original idea and opening. Inevitably on projects of this sort of size things run late and go over budget. People complain.

Now they’re open (well not yet for HS2) no-one seriously says we shouldn’t have built these, we wonder how we ever managed without them. Take the Elizabeth Line - as Kate as 6 months before the delayed opening there were people suggesting that the whole thing wasn’t needed, gross waste of money and the whole thing should be cancelled. Does anyone really think that now?

It will be the same with HS2. It is a huge amount of money, there has been mismanagement (and I’m not defending that) but I believe that once it’s open people will wonder how we ever managed without it.

 

[The Ham]

It will be the same with HS2. It is a huge amount of money, there has been mismanagement (and I’m not defending that) but I believe that once it’s open people will wonder how we ever managed without it.

Indeed, it will also likely result in a significant uplift in rail use across the board, to the extent that the cancelled sections will be looked at favourably again, especially Manchester, but even to Leeds and may even lead to calls for even more rail investment.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd be interested to know what you think of my subsequent comment from the post that you quoted, ie. that a new route after HS2 could provide "high quality end to end services, but also between intermediate places too".

As you may recall, I said this in the context that this new route should be London to Edinburgh and Glasgow via Leeds. However, in recognition that this route wouldn’t have enough end to end traffic to justify having perhaps only one or two stops, it should also carry intermediate traffic, with stops being something like Luton Airport, Leicester, East Midlands, Sheffield, Leeds, Teesside and Tyneside.

Services from Birmingham and Manchester would feed into this route, at East Midlands and Leeds.

This was also in the context that the UK was quick to tap into HS1 to provide London-Kent services, in order to add value to the cost of its construction, ie. we should find a way to maximise the value here too.

Apologies if I missed any responses you might have already made to this suggestion of a new route.

Sorry, late to this.

I think I posted about that on the pther thread. But in short, if HS2 was already built to near Manchester (or even Crewe, or Lichfield), then you’ve already dealt with the difficult and thus expensive part. Therefore it is much,much chesper, snd better vslue for money, to continue to Scotland as an extension of that. Passenegrs from the big conurbations of W Mids and Manchester are on the route, services from Leeds can feed in via NPR.

 

[Shrop]

It will be the same with HS2. It is a huge amount of money, there has been mismanagement (and I’m not defending that) but I believe that once it’s open people will wonder how we ever managed without it.

I absolutely agree, I remember the hysteria with HS1, yet those who had the hysterics were, a couple of years later, highly surprised to be told that it was up and running.

It's just such a shame that the UK has gone from being the world's leader in rail development, to being about the world's slowest and cumbersome today

 

[Bald Rick]

to being about the world's slowest and cumbersome today

Germany and France say hello

 

[Stossgebet]

Just a thought. And obviously not a like for like comparisonz but you'll get the principle....

Imagine if the rest of western europe looked at our railways, and thought something like... 'we'll use their loading gauge, why waste money building it bigger'.
Now they have double deck trains all over the place!

The point being. Why constrain ourselves in the begining? And it isn't as of HS2 is some wildly massive improvement over the standard high speed railways being built elsewhere today!

 

[Farigiraf]

Might not be the case, but would building it at a slightly lower speed, say, 300km/h, potentially have been able to increase options for the route by being able to weave it round things a little more, perhaps reducing problems with NIMBYs/making it easier to sort out some of their concerns

They'd find something else to complain about. Most Chiltern locals don't want any railway at all (ideally anywhere) because they drive everywhere. That mindset was likely reinforced by the countless rural bus routes cut during COVID and the Chiltern pre-2020 timetable still not being restored. And the Beeching cuts.

The problem we have in the UK is that a significant number of people always say large new infrastructure projects aren’t needed. For example in my lifetime we’ve had:

The Jubilee Line Extension
Channel Tunnel and HS1
Elizabeth Line
HS2

All of the above are huge projects, lasting decades between the original idea and opening. Inevitably on projects of this sort of size things run late and go over budget. People complain.

Now they’re open (well not yet for HS2) no-one seriously says we shouldn’t have built these, we wonder how we ever managed without them. Take the Elizabeth Line - as Kate as 6 months before the delayed opening there were people suggesting that the whole thing wasn’t needed, gross waste of money and the whole thing should be cancelled. Does anyone really think that now?

It will be the same with HS2. It is a huge amount of money, there has been mismanagement (and I’m not defending that) but I believe that once it’s open people will wonder how we ever managed without it.

Precisely. Actually, the Jubilee Line is coming close to max capacity and there are already calls for a second Crossrail through London. Imagine if neither had happened in the first place!

 

[Transilien]

Germany and France say hello

France does have an infrequent service outside Paris, but the TGV network and the Paris RER/Transilien networks are world-leading. At least both Germany and France can have more than two metros! Japan is another country that is generally considered 'world-leading', but the experience outside of major cities seems to much worse than the UK and even France, with so many rural lines being closed across the country due to declining population.

 

[Shrop]

Germany and France say hello

So France and its TGV makes our HS2 progress look quick?

 

[Bald Rick]

So France and its TGV makes our HS2 progress look quick?

I‘ve mentioned before that the public inquiry into the LGV from Bordeaux to Tolouse concluded in 2005, and land purchase rights granted in 2008.…

 

[eldomtom2]

I‘ve mentioned before that the public inquiry into the LGV from Bordeaux to Tolouse concluded in 2005, and land purchase rights granted in 2008.…

But that's because they always intended to do those things well in advance of construction actually beginning. The LGV Sud Europe Atlantique, which the Bordeaux-Tolouse LGV is planned to connect to, is a fairer example - 188 miles long, public hearings complete by 2007, construction started 2012, construction finished 2015, line opened 2017. In fairness this used existing stations, but if HS2 was being built at that pace the only construction left to do would be stations by now.

 

[Austriantrain]

I‘ve mentioned before that the public inquiry into the LGV from Bordeaux to Tolouse concluded in 2005, and land purchase rights granted in 2008.…

That one should be compared to HS8, i.e. Glasgow/Edinburgh - Dundee - Aberdeen.

 

[The Ham]

Just a thought. And obviously not a like for like comparisonz but you'll get the principle....

Imagine if the rest of western europe looked at our railways, and thought something like... 'we'll use their loading gauge, why waste money building it bigger'.
Now they have double deck trains all over the place!

The point being. Why constrain ourselves in the begining? And it isn't as of HS2 is some wildly massive improvement over the standard high speed railways being built elsewhere today!

Indeed, the train why (in an entirely other area) that Team GB do so well in cycling (I believe for one Olympics there was a flat near Manchester which was something like 12th in the global medal table!) is because they have made lots of small improvements.

With the railways, they sometimes get this (i.e. trying to always rebuild railway bridges to facilitate OHLE electrification, even in 3rd rail land, although some of that is also to improve freight capacity) however it would be interesting to see how close we could get to bring able to run more continental sized trains (probably would need to focus on lines served by HS2 and NPR services beyond their infrastructure).

Yes nothing would probably change for at least 20 years, and probably not much for 40 years, however over time we'd be able to run higher capacity trains without having to build entirely new lines.

Given that the expensive bit of building such lines is typically at the London end, being able to use all HS2's 17tph as all docker decker trains (potentially 1,600 seats per train and 800 on the half length sets - putting them on a par with the average of current 390's) without having to spend tens of billions on new lines into London and massive disruption in creating yet more platforms somewhere, but rather maybe a few billion on new bridges and changes at stations (much of which would be needed anyway as the bridges become life expired).

Yes the other services may need to change (retractable steps and/or typically being pathed to specific platforms) however given the issues with level boarding that's probably something else which could be developed at the same time.

 

[Shrop]

I‘ve mentioned before that the public inquiry into the LGV from Bordeaux to Tolouse concluded in 2005, and land purchase rights granted in 2008.…

So how does that progress (which was several iterations of TGV many years ago), make the progress of the UK's first domestic HSL (which is still many years in the future), look creditable by comparison?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2026 ==

That one should be compared to HS8, i.e. Glasgow/Edinburgh - Dundee - Aberdeen.

Absolutely my point

 

[JamesT]

So how does that progress (which was several iterations of TGV many years ago), make the progress of the UK's first domestic HSL (which is still many years in the future), look creditable by comparison?

@Bald Rick ’s point is it’s not. LGV Bordeaux - Toulouse only started construction in 2024 and is due to open in 2032. They took 20 years to go from starting to shovels in the ground. (Initial studies 2002-2004). Whereas HS2 was half that time, announced by Adonis in 2009 and started in 2019.

 

[positron]

How much cheaper would HS2 have been to build had it been designed for - say - 185mph (or even 150mph), and how much difference in the end to end journey time would it have made ?

Worth remembering HS2 isn't about speed it's about capacity. The higher speeds are mostly because there's no point building brand new infrastructure and kneecapping it to save a few percentage points on cost.

Also higher speeds let you run more trains and so release more capacity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2026 ==

I don’t know I’m afraid.

What I do know is that the 17tph service provision and 360kph top speed meant ballasted track couldn’t cope, hence the slab. A lower top speed and lower service provision would have avoided this. Although slab has better whole life costs.

I believe slab is also more resilient to extreme heat which seems a good bet for a new build line in a warming climate.

 

[Shrop]

@Bald Rick ’s point is it’s not. LGV Bordeaux - Toulouse only started construction in 2024 and is due to open in 2032. They took 20 years to go from starting to shovels in the ground. (Initial studies 2002-2004). Whereas HS2 was half that time, announced by Adonis in 2009 and started in 2019.

Firstly, taking from 2009 until 2019 is nothing to be proud of. And don't forget a great deal of work towards HS2 was done by Greengauge21 prior to HS2 being formally announced, it was hardly just an embryonic thought in 2009.

Secondly, it's not a reasonable comparison. HS2 is the first new long distance domestic route in the UK for well over 100 years, a flagship scheme bringing HSR to the UK for the first time (not counting HS1 as that was an international project).

LGV Bordeaux-Toulouse is a long way down the path of HSR development in France, whose flagship scheme (Paris-Lyon) was 1981 wasn't it? Over FIFTY years ahead of HS2?

By the time the UK is developing HSn (where n is as far along the UK programme as France's Bordeaux-Toulouse is), only then is the comparison reasonable.

 

[JamesT]

Firstly, taking from 2009 until 2019 is nothing to be proud of. And don't forget a great deal of work towards HS2 was done by Greengauge21 prior to HS2 being formally announced, it was hardly just an embryonic thought in 2009.

Secondly, it's not a reasonable comparison. HS2 is the first new long distance domestic route in the UK for well over 100 years, a flagship scheme bringing HSR to the UK for the first time. LGV Bordeaux-Toulouse is a long way down the path of HSR development in France, whose flagship scheme (Paris-Lyon). 1981 wasn't it? Over FIFTY years ahead of HS2?

By the time the UK is developing HSn (where n is as far along the UK programme as France's Bordeaux-Toulouse is), only then is the comparison reasonable.

Was any of the Greengauge work taken up by HS2, or did they have to redo it to show it had been investigated properly? Taking as the start point the official body being asked by the government to study a new line seems comparable across the two systems.

It is an entirely reasonable comparison, it’s what they’re building right now. Despite all these many advantages the French should have, that building HSR isn’t controversial, it’s still taking them this long.

 

[eldomtom2]

Despite all these many advantages the French should have, that building HSR isn’t controversial, it’s still taking them this long.

Again, the delays between the studies completing with LGV Bordeaux–Toulouse and construction beginning is because the project was put on hold for financial reasons while other HSR projects had priority, it wasn't because the studies took a long time. If HS2 was being built at the pace Bordeaux–Toulouse is, construction outside London and Birmingham would be finished in 2028.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe slab is also more resilient to extreme heat which seems a good bet for a new build line in a warming climate.

Yes, but there is nothing climate wise in this country that means slab is a requirement. The new lines in Saudi are on ballast…

And don't forget a great deal of work towards HS2 was done by Greengauge21 prior to HS2 being formally announced, it was hardly just an embryonic thought in 2009.

The GG21 stuff was helpful, but the work still had to be done from scratch. There was lots of pre-work for the French LGVs (not TGVs) before formal decision points too.

not counting HS1 as that was an international project).

It was a project with international and domestic objectives, with domestic having more trains and more passengers. Whilst it wouldnt have hapened without the international objectives, neither would it have happened without the domestic objectives either.

 

[CdBrux]

We have done this several times before on previous threads.

Had it been, say, 270 or 300km/h instead of 360, the saving would have been a couple of %. The alignment would have been the same. The difference in cost would have been in what sits beneath the rails, but even then, it’s minimal difference.

what about the risk profile of known technologies, construction & rolling stock?
I am also a little sceptical of the theoretically calculated differences when the budgeting for HS2 has been, shall we say, less than robust

 

[NCT]

Firstly, taking from 2009 until 2019 is nothing to be proud of. And don't forget a great deal of work towards HS2 was done by Greengauge21 prior to HS2 being formally announced, it was hardly just an embryonic thought in 2009.

Secondly, it's not a reasonable comparison. HS2 is the first new long distance domestic route in the UK for well over 100 years, a flagship scheme bringing HSR to the UK for the first time (not counting HS1 as that was an international project).

LGV Bordeaux-Toulouse is a long way down the path of HSR development in France, whose flagship scheme (Paris-Lyon). 1981 wasn't it? Over FIFTY years ahead of HS2?

By the time the UK is developing HSn (where n is as far along the UK programme as France's Bordeaux-Toulouse is), only then is the comparison reasonable.

We can all wish the UK started building HSR back in the 1980s, but we can't turn the clock back. The 1980s had a completely different political environment.

Most of Western Europe has the same challenges around an aging population demand a greater share of fiscal resources, a Boomer generation largely retired divorced from the working economy that has strong political influence. HS2, LGV Bordeaux-Toulouse, HSR expansion in Germany all navigate this common political environment and it's entirely reasonable to compare them.

And if Wikipedia is accurate, LGV sud-est launched as a formal project in 1967, and first spade in the ground of 1976.

 

[Shrop]

Was any of the Greengauge work taken up by HS2, or did they have to redo it to show it had been investigated properly? Taking as the start point the official body being asked by the government to study a new line seems comparable across the two systems.

It is an entirely reasonable comparison, it’s what they’re building right now. Despite all these many advantages the French should have, that building HSR isn’t controversial, it’s still taking them this long.

You seem to be ignoring the rather shameful point that we in the UK are 50 years behind the French with our first domestic HSR project.

And the fact that capacity is generally given as the main justification for HS2 shows that it's been needed for a great many years.

Plus the latent demand that I'm certain we have from our saturated motorways, if only we had the public and political culture that was keen to tap into it.

And before anyone asks me to justify this last comment with proof, I'd be delighted to, for a fraction of the consultancy fees that have been lavished on many transport projects around the UK

 

[swt_passenger]

Taking the experience of HS1 where the check-in deadline at St Pancras is 30 minutes before train departure, with a recommendation to be there 40-60 minute in advance, I wonder what the arrangement will be at Euston for HS2?

If it's similar to St Pancras you could be passing Rugby on the WCML before the HS2 train you waited for left Euston!

Thats an irrelevance, as has been pointed out many times, HS2 will not need immigration and security controls.