HS2 could cost up to £102.7bn and trains won't start until at least 2036

[styles]

I'm going to bet that the vast majority of the people also kipping in the waiting room had simply missed the last train and didn't have the funds for a hotel.

Not at all.

It's a common overnight stay on Avanti services. To the point that the railway station employs security guards to ensure people only leave the waiting room to use the toilets or the vending machines. I was actually greeted by a security guard as I got off the train who informed me of where the waiting room, toilets, and vending machines were. They're clearly prepared for it. If you start wandering the platforms they'll shoo you back into the waiting room.

This was a few years ago and it was these journeys:

Euston - Wolverhampton https://timetables.trainsplit.com/times.aspx?uid=P08145&date=20220729
Wolverhampton - Bangor https://timetables.trainsplit.com/times.aspx?uid=P07256&date=20220730

It comes up (or did) on split ticketing websites. That's how I, and probably most of the other passengers, ended up with the tickets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

Total capacity about 200.

So half of a 9-car Pendolino from NX customers alone, already more than a 3-car class 730 as originally suggested.

I must admit to being surprised by there being that many. Before Flix it was a couple of NX and a couple of Megabus. Is this Flix managing to convince tourists that they're the best option? Having said that, those passengers would all fit in one Pendolino, and they're probably choosing overnight primarily because it's such a long trip by coach.

FlixBus coaches have 40-60 seats, so if we go with 50, and assume say 80% occupancy rate (which I believe to be conservative when they're described as 'Almost full' but would need to check), that's 440 Flixbus plus 200 NX.

Edit: I've just checked the first three overnight Flixbus journey and 'Almost full' means there are an average of 11 out of 53 seats available. So extrapolating that it does actually come out at 79% occupancy with over half a day to go, so 80% was a good guess! I expect it to increase to idk 85%+ by the time the coach leaves.

That's more passengers than any Avanti train.

And that's when they're paying for it. If you offered it for free, demand would go through the roof.

The Sleeper seats are irrelevant. Each night the full capacity across all trains would fit in a 153.

They're not irrelevant - they demonstrate that people are willing to have a frankly uncomfortable night's sleep if it only costs them like £35 for 400 miles.

I reckon if the sleeper services offered couchettes at half the price of a room, or doubled the number of seats, they'd still sell out a lot of days.

 

[JonathanH]

There's 11 overnight Flixbus coach services from London to Glasgow tonight, all of which are 'Almost full' (I haven't opened the seat selector to check exactly what that's defined as, but if it were a misrepresentation I doubt they'd run 11 services when they could condense it into say 5 for example).

There aren't. There are five which have multiple stops in London, and one is a connection at Northampton into one of those later coaches.

The Flixbus coaches carry many fewer passengers than when Megabus used to use larger coaches. Now, unfortunately no longer in the market.

 

[styles]

There aren't. There are five which have multiple stops in London, and one is a connection at Northampton into one of those later coaches.

You're right, I hadn't realised the Flixbus journey planner showed the same service multiple time. Thanks. 440*5/11+200 = bang on 400 (ignoring the one which has a Northampton connection actually). Still more standard seats than a 9-car Pendolino. And that's with them paying (and some of these Flixbus journeys are nearly £90). If it was free, it would be rammed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it was free, it would be rammed.

I really don't agree. Service buses are free to a significant proportion of the population. Are they all travelling from London to Manchester on a string of service buses? No.

Comfort and convenience are also important.

 

[weeklycommuter]

£100 billion for an asset that will last a hundred years, considering the money should largely be staying in our economy, and acknowledging the massive devaluation of Sterling, is not horrific.

I accept that the £100 billion is for an asset worth having if all three sides of the Delta Junction are completed and HS2 joins the West Coast Main Line between Norton Junction and Crewe. Then it will deliver the very necessary capacity benefits for both freight and passenger train services on the West Coast Main Line route which is the reason for building it.

This is not just about running long distance passenger train services on HS2. It is also about enabling more freight and passenger trains on the West Coast Main Line by removing some long distance passenger trains from the Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck.

If HS2 joins the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre Junction it will not deliver these capacity benefits on the West Coast Main Line route and it will be a waste of taxpayers' money.

A six platform HS2 station at Euston can support nine trains an hour which would enable the three 400 metre long double set trains an hour London Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street and two trains an hour on HS2 via Crewe each to Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland.

The current two trains an hour London to Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent can continue on the West Coast Mainline as now and a third train to and from Scotland can run each hour to and from the seven platform Birmingham Curzon Street Station.

A big increase in the number of freight trains and the total number of seats on passenger trains on the West Coast Main Line route can be delivered but only if HS2 joins the West Coast Main Line between Norton Junction and Crewe, not at Handsacre Junction.

 

[styles]

I really don't agree. Service buses are free to a significant proportion of the population. Are they all travelling from London to Manchester on a string of service buses? No.

Comfort and convenience are also important.

Elderly people with free bus passes are hardly going to make 3am journeys from the capital to the Midlands, no, no matter how they travel.

But this is building a strawman in my view.

A combination of local bus services which involves multiple connections and takes forever and don't run at night is not comparable to a direct, fast, rail service between say London and Birmingham, which you said if you provided for free would be practically empty. I don't believe this to be the case.

If you offered free Avanti trains from London to Birmingham they would absolutely get packed. The sheer number of students, unemployed, and low-paid workers would mean they'd fill up.

I don't believe the families in the waiting room at Wolverhampton with me were ticketing experts or hobbyists - they just found it was the cheapest way for them to make their journey and took it. Especially with the current cost of living crisis, yeah it's not something I'd consider these days, but many would, and for free? Absolutely!

 

[Swedenorer]

If you offered free Avanti trains from London to Birmingham they would absolutely get packed. The sheer number of students, unemployed, and low-paid workers would mean they'd fill up.

Some if us are old enough to recall the infamous 'free day out for all senior railcard holders' in 1978 or 79. We backed on to West Coastway and it was indeed rammed. If my memory serves me right some intrepid pensioners got so far they could't get back in the day and I'm sure SR had to run some extras.

 

[Krokodil]

Not everyone is going to London.

A 397 takes about two minutes longer to get from Glasgow to Wigan than a 390 on the same calling pattern. I'm sure that you'll cope.

Was that a plan, or what people on this forum came up with as a possibility?

It was in the train service specification.

Another failing of HS2 was not giving any decent idea of what a post-HS2 service would look like.

Just because you didn't read the documents doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Having watched yesterday's Transport Select Committee session on HS2, with Mark Wild, Peter Hendy and Dean Creamer (DfT project sponsor) giving evidence, some things were clarified:
- the cost/timescales announced by Heidi Alexander include rolling stock and Euston
- there are no plans to change the rolling stock contract (ie 54x8-car 200m trains)
- there is essentially no work going on to clarify what will happen north of Handsacre
- the truncated HS2 Millington-Manchester bill, now part of NPR, will reach Committee stage "imminently"
- the aim is to have the detailed rest operational by April 2027; contract negotiations with the supply chain are ongoing

Peter Hendy wants the feasibility study north of Handsacre to be done by GBR when it owns all the industry components, to take a holistic view of the options available.

One inflation morsel was that steelwork for the HS2 civils was contracted to come from the Azovstal plant in Mariupol, Ukraine, which was destroyed in the early says of the Russian invasion in 2022. The steel supply contracts had to be placed elsewhere at much higher cost.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Just to weigh in on the consultant bashing.

There is probably a whole separate thread to set out the appropriate use and misuse of consultants...

Also, given the inability to deliver HS2 on time or budget, what are the chances these WCML upgrades would be any different?

Hindsight bias is a real thing and if we put ourselves back at the time when HS2 was being conceived (let's say 2008-2012), we need to remember we are just getting over the failures of West Coast Modernisation that was late, over budget and delivered much less than originally promised. The basic conclusion was that, due to legacy assets and disruption, it'd have been better to build a new railway.

Fast forward to 2017-2020 when decision-makers were getting to the point of giving HS2 the go-ahead, GWEP is fresh in people's minds, which was... late, over budget and delivered much less than originally promised. Why does anybody think that a further round of substantial WCML upgrades would be on time, on budget and not cause massive amounts of disruption?

So ministers were persuaded the solution was a greenfield railway with no legacy railway assets or existing train services to disrupt.

However, there were lots of legacy non-railway assets and things to disrupt in the path of a greenfield railway. So scope, cost and schedule pressure would have happened regardless of route
This was always going to translate into political pressures to (1) show rapid progress and/or (2) tinker, descope or cancel it and therefore (3) get projects past the point of no return/"too big to cancel".

A lot of the issues at the core of HS2 project, that have cost taxpayers tens of billions of pounds, come from trying to deliver HS2 in response to these factors.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

So ministers were persuaded the solution was a greenfield railway with no legacy railway assets or existing train services to disrupt.

But did they consider how much might be saved by designing it to a lower maximum speed specification? For that matter if it was going to be the fastest railway in Western Europe, if not the world, did they consider the timetable for testing it?

 

[JamesT]

But did they consider how much might be saved by designing it to a lower maximum speed specification? For that matter if it was going to be the fastest railway in Western Europe, if not the world, did they consider the timetable for testing it?

Yes, a conventional speed railway was one of the options presented as an alternative to HS2. The conclusion of that report was that building to 125mph would only save 10%, but would have much lower benefits.
The fastest railway is very overblown. As noted on other threads, other railways in Western Europe have already been built to the specifications HS2 aimed at, even if they haven't run those in service. And the Chinese have run at essentially those speeds in service. Capping the speed of the whole system to avoid having to test either overseas or waiting for a section to be complete is the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Broucek]

Yes, a conventional speed railway was one of the options presented as an alternative to HS2. The conclusion of that report was that building to 125mph would only save 10%, but would have much lower benefits.
The fastest railway is very overblown. As noted on other threads, other railways in Western Europe have already been built to the specifications HS2 aimed at, even if they haven't run those in service. And the Chinese have run at essentially those speeds in service. Capping the speed of the whole system to avoid having to test either overseas or waiting for a section to be complete is the tail wagging the dog.

I don't disagree, although 10% of a huge number is still a pretty big number....

 

[InTheEastMids]

But did they consider how much might be saved by designing it to a lower maximum speed specification?

This is a good point.

First thought is whether DfT was a sufficiently intelligent client to challenge HS2's proposals.

Second point - there was understandable keenness to future-proof and incorporate lessons from other HSR developers like SNCF. That's sensible - we can see that railways have lifetimes of 200 years. However it then seems to have mission-crept into trying to be world-beating and first-of-a-kind in some ways. This is risky for a country with limited experience of HSR, and the clarity of hindsight suggests we should have instead aimed to get the basics right.

However, third point is that the cost implications of maximum speeds etc, are - according those paid to know - significantly smaller than the cost impacts of starting work too early, before the design work and consenting were further along, and this left lots of risk with HS2 as a Client. This, and why it happens, is what needs focus if EWR, NPR or other UK critical infrastructure projects are to avoid being the next national embarrassment.

 

[JamesT]

I don't disagree, although 10% of a huge number is still a pretty big number....

But if you're getting less than 90% of the benefits of the full project, then it's worse value for money.

 

[Sealink]

It is now practically impossible to justify HS2 (and I was a huge fan, spending ages telling the incredulous that it was not about speed but about releasing freight capacity), I am sure the only thing keeping it going is the amount of money that has been sunk into it already.

 

[Broucek]

But if you're getting less than 90% of the benefits of the full project, then it's worse value for money.

If you can afford it. Sometimes a low spec offering is lower value for money but is still chosen because it's cheaper and the buyer values that

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Is it though?

If I look at my costs compared with 2019;
Home energy is 3x higher.
Food costs are 2-2.5x higher.
Fuel costs around 1.5x higher.
Childcare is 1.5x higher.

Salary is 1.3x higher.

We are all feeling the pinch, nothing costs what it did back then regardless of scope changes.
Interest rates are higher so borrowing costs are higher, leading toa limited set annual budget which lead to increased overall cost. (12 years at £6B is far more than 8 years at £8B)

The new Senior Accounting Officer said at the Treasury Select Committee hearing yesterday the remit to HS2 Ltd was deliver the outcome as quickly as possible for the least amount of cost. I get the impression from listening to Wilde that he either very conservative in his approach or has been directed not to setup the govt to fail again. Aka this could be delivered quicker if people are prepared to accept risks.

Anyhow we will get a new baseline in April 2027 !!

 

[Annetts key]

If you can afford it. Sometimes a low spec offering is lower value for money but is still chosen because it's cheaper and the buyer values that

And as an example of that we have most of our current railway network...

Overall, it's better value for money to build infrastructure to a sensible specification to cope with at least some future needs than to build a cheaper system that is only just capable and then having to spend a lot more at a later date to upgrade it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

The new Senior Accounting Officer said at the Treasury Select Committee hearing yesterday the remit to HS2 Ltd was deliver the outcome as quickly as possible for the least amount of cost. I get the impression from listening to Wilde that he either very conservative in his approach or has been directed not to setup the govt to fail again. Aka this could be delivered quicker if people are prepared to accept risks.

Anyhow we will get a new baseline in April 2027 !!

There's a "goldilocks" element here, building fast costs lots of money, but taking too long building a big project also costs lots of money due to inflation. The longer a project takes, the more affect inflation has.

 

[Broucek]

And as an example of that we have most of our current railway network...

Overall, it's better value for money to build infrastructure to a sensible specification to cope with at least some future needs than to build a cheaper system that is only just capable and then having to spend a lot more at a later date to upgrade it.

I have mixed feelings about this.

I completely see what you are talking about but sometimes the counter-factual wasn't a better spec, it was building nothing...

There's a "goldilocks" element here, building fast costs lots of money, but taking too long building a big project also costs lots of money due to inflation. The longer a project takes, the more affect inflation has.

And a later project also means the benefits of the project are later which presumably matters in the cost-benefit analysis

 

[Pigeon]

It is now practically impossible to justify HS2 (and I was a huge fan, spending ages telling the incredulous that it was not about speed but about releasing freight capacity)

...and the way to do that is to build a freight line. Not a line with the connectivity of a freight line but with a grotesquely overblown specification and then using it for passengers while still using the passenger lines for freight.

 

[Sealink]

...and the way to do that is to build a freight line. Not a line with the connectivity of a freight line but with a grotesquely overblown specification and then using it for passengers while still using the passenger lines for freight.

I thought the freight was going on WCML...

 

[Broucek]

I thought the freight was going on WCML...

I think the question is whether we should have built a new freight line rather than a new passanger line

 

[MarlowDonkey]

...and the way to do that is to build a freight line. Not a line with the connectivity of a freight line but with a grotesquely overblown specification and then using it for passengers while still using the passenger lines for freight.

Before HS2 there was a proposal for a freight line called "Central Railway", It was taken sufficiently seriously that the "Tesco Tunnel" above the Chiltern Line at Gerrards Cross made provision for four tracks. The route had some similarities to the original HS2 proposals or for that matter the GCR's London extension a hundred years earlier with its ambition for a Channel Tunnel link.

Central Railway (UK) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mmh]

Before HS2 there was a proposal for a freight line called "Central Railway", It was taken sufficiently seriously that the "Tesco Tunnel" above the Chiltern Line at Gerrards Cross made provision for four tracks. The route had some similarities to the original HS2 proposals or for that matter the GCR's London extension a hundred years earlier with its ambition for a Channel Tunnel link.

Central Railway (UK) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

With private money, perhaps. A freight only route funded publicly would be just as unpopular as HS2.

 

[BrianW]

I imagine so will the Lower Thames Crossing. The question might be, "why are the estimated cost estimates so far out? ". And "what are they actually spending the money on, that is not part of the railway" ?

Optimism bias is why. Proponents of a scheme ALWAY under-estimate. It is in their interest to 'win' approval.
HS2 started on the ground when designs were 'immature'. Similar reason- the 'political imperative ' of 'spades in the ground' before an election.
'Stop-go' to slow expenditure to what the 'cash flow' will bear. Borrowing, even for investment, costs money. NO-one wants to pay tax. No-one elects a party promising higher taxes.
Vanity. 'Legacy'.

The current goverment has promised to cut down (and out?) the potential for objecting to and holding up planning approvals, NIBYISM, esp for Crical National Infrastructure, opportunities for Judicial Review etc.

 

[The Planner]

Before HS2 there was a proposal for a freight line called "Central Railway", It was taken sufficiently seriously that the "Tesco Tunnel" above the Chiltern Line at Gerrards Cross made provision for four tracks. The route had some similarities to the original HS2 proposals or for that matter the GCR's London extension a hundred years earlier with its ambition for a Channel Tunnel link.

Central Railway (UK) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It wasn't because of that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

...and the way to do that is to build a freight line. Not a line with the connectivity of a freight line but with a grotesquely overblown specification and then using it for passengers while still using the passenger lines for freight.

You wouldn't fill a freight line, and it wouldn't release capacity on the WCML fasts.

 

[JamieL]

The current goverment has promised to cut down (and out?) the potential for objecting to and holding up planning approvals, NIBYISM, esp for Crical National Infrastructure, opportunities for Judicial Review etc.

I think this is going to be critical if going forward we ever want to build any kind of critical national infrastructure again. Overall, I disagree with some of the debate above about HS2 being 'over specified' and it should have pitched lower - that is just defeatism and low-aspiration - the issue why HS2 is so expensive is due almost solely to political failure. Endless changes and concessions brought about by narrow political interests (tunnels, bat caves, route etc). The failure of politicians to robustly overrule heritage, environmental and NIMBY factors. The failure of politicians to progress the scheme at pace and without further change once the route was finalised. Unfortunately such issues are structural and our political construct is unable to overcome such blockers. As it is, the HS2 project must now been seen as a catastrophic failure which will stand as a legacy of what we simply cannot achieve in the 21st century. We will have to fallback on the 19th century railway routes which was seemingly the last time the UK was actually able to build such infrastructure.

 

[Trainman40083]

I did think about HS2 earlier. I was on a late running London Midland service to Stafford, heading north. Two track section through Shrugborough. Holding up faster services , and a southbound freight. One of the reasons for the delay, was a guy on a mobility scooter that wanted to get off at Rugeley. He had to get back on, as no way would it have got over the footbridge.

 

[BrianW]

I think this is going to be critical if going forward we ever want to build any kind of critical national infrastructure again. Overall, I disagree with some of the debate above about HS2 being 'over specified' and it should have pitched lower - that is just defeatism and low-aspiration - the issue why HS2 is so expensive is due almost solely to political failure. Endless changes and concessions brought about by narrow political interests (tunnels, bat caves, route etc). The failure of politicians to robustly overrule heritage, environmental and NIMBY factors. The failure of politicians to progress the scheme at pace and without further change once the route was finalised. Unfortunately such issues are structural and our political construct is unable to overcome such blockers. As it is, the HS2 project must now been seen as a catastrophic failure which will stand as a legacy of what we simply cannot achieve in the 21st century. We will have to fallback on the 19th century railway routes which was seemingly the last time the UK was actually able to build such infrastructure.

We had a lot of income from 'the Empire' back in the glorious past. We have to EARN the money these days- not just talk of 'hard-working families'. GB is poorly productive and low on investment. GB is #25 in terms of GDP per capita. 'Working life' is a fraction of 'life expectancy'. I have no wish to work longer hours, or to retire later, or to pay more taxes, or any. I won't vote for any party promising that. I need to get real- and I won't. I've had the government I 'deserve'- defeatism and low aspiration. Where there is no vision, the people perish. This was recognised some three millenia ago. Nothing new under the sun.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

I did think about HS2 earlier. I was on a late running London Midland service to Stafford, heading north. Two track section through Shrugborough. Holding up faster services , and a southbound freight. One of the reasons for the delay, was a guy on a mobility scooter that wanted to get off at Rugeley. He had to get back on, as no way would it have got over the footbridge.

Good luck to that man getting himself and his mobility scooter onto an HS2 train, when it comes ...