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

[The Ham]

Exactly. Tbf you could connect them with OOC but Heathrow is nearer. could improve the case for international services if you have a stop there

Unless there was a new set of platforms in close proximity to one of the airport stations (and even then you'd still have people switching between airport stations) the risk is that it'll be a longer walk (as was the case for the original proposal at Heathrow T5) than is the case at Old Oak Common.

Whilst International rail travel could have benefited (route everyone to change to an International platform at Heathrow) journey times much beyond London are unlikely to be the go to travel option. As such, the numbers wouldn't necessarily be that high and so make it hard to justify building a line through to HS1.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Whilst International rail travel could have benefited (route everyone to change to an International platform at Heathrow) journey times much beyond London are unlikely to be the go to travel option. As such, the numbers wouldn't necessarily be that high and so make it hard to justify building a line through to HS1.

Building a new line to HS1 would work better if you divert Javelin services down it towards Heathrow or further afield though.

 

[HSTEd]

The only way I could see an alignment via Heathrow being attractive is if you move the HS2 alignment substantially to the west. If you go via Oxford then it might work, otherwise its a pretty big dogleg for not much in the way of additional traffic.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think you know this too, and it is a bit tiresome to keep reading wishful claims for HS2 when we all know that it has actually failed in so many ways.

It’s a bit tiresome to keep reading frankly propogandic statements that HS2 is only going to benefit London to Birmingham, or that it’s 100 miles, or that it should all have been done very differently. It’s as if the hundreds of people who worked on the early development stages, and all those involved in the (many, many) challenge panels, peer reviews, “spiky chairs’ etc. all got it wrong. But a commentator on line who has no experience of actually developing railway projects for a living knows best.

There is no doubt that much has gone wrong with HS2 (some of which will be in my book if I ever write it), and no doubt it could have been finished much more quickly and cheaply. However that does not diminsh the fact that even in it’s truncated form, it will benefit a very large swathe of the country, and not just those who travel on trains.

The real issue is that London’s main airport is in the wrong place- it should be either at Luton or in the Chilterns- but then we are getting way into hypotheticals.

The Chilterns being notable for not being very flat, as any cyclist local to the area will tell you (with a sigh, if they have any breath left).

Heathrow Hub could have worked I think. It was near enough to Heathrow to plausibly feel like part of the Heathrow complex. Whereas OOC is a whole borough away. If it was built at Stockley Park, you could have had potentially 6 Crossrail trains an hour connecting from the airport to the terminals. New York's JFK has no rail connections at all, but relies on (admittedly unacceptably long) driverless light rail lines to connect to the nearest rail nodes. We didn't have to route HS2 underneath or beside Heathrow itself.

Heathrow Hub would have also provided parking near the M25 and rail connections to Surrey, in theory, with the Heathrow Southern Rail Link. Not all trains would need to stop there. I doubt there would be much demand for Leeds/Birmingham trains, but certainly the Anglo-Scot or Manchester trains.

My original plan for what became HS2 had a ‘Heathrow terminal R’ adjacent to J1 of the M40 at Denham with a large car park where the car boot sale is now. And a high speed mass transit shuttle between Terminal R and the CTA and T4.

This was when I was 13, and in my (brief) pencil crayon phase between watching the cricket that summer. I learned many years later to follow evidence.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It’s a bit tiresome to keep reading frankly propogandic statements that HS2 is only going to benefit London to Birmingham, or that it’s 100 miles, or that it should all have been done very differently. It’s as if the hundreds of people who worked on the early development stages, and all those involved in the (many, many) challenge panels, peer reviews, “spiky chairs’ etc. all got it wrong. But a commentator on line who has no experience of actually developing railway projects for a living knows best.

There is no doubt that much has gone wrong with HS2 (some of which will be in my book if I ever write it), and no doubt it could have been finished much more quickly and cheaply. However that does not diminsh the fact that even in it’s truncated form, it will benefit a very large swathe of the country, and not just those who travel on trains.




The Chilterns being notable for not being very flat, as any cyclist local to the area will tell you (with a sigh, if they have any breath left).




My original plan for what became HS2 had a ‘Heathrow terminal R’ adjacent to J1 of the M40 at Denham with a large car park where the car boot sale is now. And a high speed mass transit shuttle between Terminal R and the CTA and T4.

This was when I was 13, and in my (brief) pencil crayon phase between watching the cricket that summer. I learned many years later to follow evidence.

I do not understand why you read these forums.

 

[London Trains]

It’s a bit tiresome to keep reading frankly propogandic statements that HS2 is only going to benefit London to Birmingham, or that it’s 100 miles, or that it should all have been done very differently. It’s as if the hundreds of people who worked on the early development stages, and all those involved in the (many, many) challenge panels, peer reviews, “spiky chairs’ etc. all got it wrong. But a commentator on line who has no experience of actually developing railway projects for a living knows best.

There is no doubt that much has gone wrong with HS2 (some of which will be in my book if I ever write it), and no doubt it could have been finished much more quickly and cheaply. However that does not diminsh the fact that even in it’s truncated form, it will benefit a very large swathe of the country, and not just those who travel on trains.




The Chilterns being notable for not being very flat, as any cyclist local to the area will tell you (with a sigh, if they have any breath left).




My original plan for what became HS2 had a ‘Heathrow terminal R’ adjacent to J1 of the M40 at Denham with a large car park where the car boot sale is now. And a high speed mass transit shuttle between Terminal R and the CTA and T4.

This was when I was 13, and in my (brief) pencil crayon phase between watching the cricket that summer. I learned many years later to follow evidence.

Nice of you to completely belittle any adults who dare to make alternative suggestions—in the speculation part of the forum too.

May as well close the forum to anyone outside the railway industry at this rate.

 

[Bald Rick]

I do not understand why you read these forums.

I’m here to help people understand the railway. And set the record straight, where necessary.

Nice of you to completely belittle any adults who dare to make alternative suggestions—in the speculation part of the forum too.

May as well close the forum to anyone outside the railway industry at this rate.

If it was simply making suggestions, I would of course not have commented as I have.

 

[London Trains]

I’m here to help people understand the railway. And set the record straight, where necessary.




If it was simlly making suggestions, I would of course not have commented as I have.

I was referring to the last part of your post, which was in response to a suggestion - the first part of your post is rude and quite frankly disgraceful, but wasn't what I was referring to.

It does seem like a select few on this forum are allowed to get away with murder, whilst others can't say a single word without being jumped at and attacked.

 

[Zomboid]

So on the subject of the thread, phase 1 should have completed the Stafford/ Colwich bypass. Delete Handsacre and put junctions in around Norton Bridge and Hixon. It's entirely possible that neither would need to be grade separated considering what else would be on those lines at that point...

My uninformed speculation would be that a Norton Bridge connection would probably be enough for the Scotland/ Liverpool/ Manchester via Crewe services, and the Hixon branch could be the start of a HSL towards Manchester/ Leeds. But equally, Manchester might be reachable with smaller interventions between Stoke and Manchester, such as a new 2 track viaduct at Cheadle Hulme and resignalling/ remodelling the southern approach to Piccadilly.

I would imagine something along those lines was considered, of course. Though why it wouldn't pass muster I couldn't say (other than cost).

 

[Energy]

HS2 talks about the selection of Old Oak Common as the "London Interchange" and the consideration of an HS2-Heathrow spur in HS2 Phase One information papers: route development (series A).

From document (A1):

6.9. Seven locations on the Great Western Main Line from Iver to Old Oak Common were considered for the interchange as well as a site at Hanwell and three Heathrow Airport options (assuming the HS2 route ran through the airport). Hanwell had no advantages over the other options, while the Heathrow would be less attractive for the 80%+ passengers not going to the airport, as well as being much more expensive.

6.10. Of the Great Western Main Line options, only Iver emerged as a realistic alternative to Old Oak Common as none of the other locations would be better on any significant criterion. Iver could be the location for a park-and-ride station for HS2 and Crossrail and would be closer to Heathrow. But an interchange at Iver would add 15-30 minutes to journeys to central London when compared to the Old Oak Common option via Crossrail. Consequently, fewer passengers would use it as an interchange and it would be significantly less effective in relieving congestion on the public transport network around Euston station. An interchange station at Iver would also be much more expensive to build because it would require a people mover or rail link to connect it to the Heathrow terminals and it would have a greater impact on the local environment.

6.11. Several options for the location of a Heathrow station were considered including the Central Terminal Area, Terminal 5, on the northern perimeter of the airport and at Iver. During the analysis, options for a direct HS2 route through the airport were rejected on grounds of cost and the delay to passengers not travelling to Heathrow. So any station at Heathrow would be served by a loop or a spur off the HS2 Main Line.

Heathrow Hub as the first HS2 stop out of London would only have been a superior option to Old Oak if:

a) the GWML was diverted via Heathrow ie a Paddington to Bristol/Cardiff/Exeter train would call at Heathrow as its first stop out of London
b) all or most Crossrail services went through this Heathrow station, possibly rejoining what would have been the “old” GWML to continue to Reading

Agreed. OOC's main purpose is to reduce the passenger load at Euston by diverting Elizabeth Line & GWML traffic out of Euston. HS2 mentions above 80+% of the traffic is not for the airport.

Any Heathrow station is either extremely expensive & disruptive to build, or requires a bus/people mover/train connection to the airport. The Elizabeth Line connection is pretty good; it covers all the terminals in 10-15 minutes, most passengers are at an airport for 2+ hours anyway, so 5 minutes more than a people mover from a dedicated Heathrow spur station is fine. Had a HS2-Heathrow station been built, I'm not convinced Heathrow or HS2 would have funded a people mover to T4.

---

In my opinion, the primary route selection problem with HS2 is a lack of learning from what made Arup's HS1 route a success: largely following the motorway where available, minimising building on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and planning to tunnel under AoNBs where required from the get-go.

(From the HS2 Phase 1 document mentioned above)

8.1. [...] The Proposed Route is not only the shortest, but it is also most likely to be the fastest and cheapest. Though it is the longest route across the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the overall difference between the options in environmental terms is marginal and the Proposed Route is no worse than the other options in terms of sustainability. Where it does impact on residential or other sensitive areas, the adverse effects will be extensively mitigated.

In other words, HS2 selected the shortest route, believing the shorter length would lead to the lowest cost. In another country with different regulatory & planning requirements, this might have been the best selection. In the UK, I think greater weight should be placed on avoiding specially protected areas.

IIRC, Arup proposed a 300km/h route that more closely followed the M40. Though the M40 construction was controversial, and this routing would have likely still suffered from HS2's poor use of design & build and costs plus contracts, HS2 starting construction while more design work was still required, and the HS2 hybrid bill requiring planning consent from local authorities.

As for the £100bn+ figure... construction inflation has been really high. The 2011 £32.7bn figure is misleading since considerable scope change, e.g. increased tunnelling, has occurred since. The 2015 £55.7bn (of which £27.18bn was for phase one) figure is more accurate.

 

[Bald Rick]

I was referring to the last part of your post, which was in response to a suggestion

Ah, that was my poor attempt at self-deprecating humour poking fun at myself, sorry if it came over in another way.

 

[Shrop]

I do not understand why you read these forums.

I'm not sure why you would say this. I often disagree with #Bald Rick but I still appreciate the contributions, which are generally more informative and polite than many.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2026 ==

May as well close the forum to anyone outside the railway industry at this rate.

Interesting that you say this. I've had comments questioned by moderators on a few occasions, which make me think that if comments made by everyone were scrutinised and questioned to the degree that some of mine have, then they must be incredibly busy.

Then again, I guess that challenging things like HS2, and suggesting that it should have been designed and managed better, is always going to be an uphill task on a site which is all about heavy rail, and thus populated largely by those with a heavy rail background and related interests

Personally I do enjoy engaging with people on this site who make constructive comments about railways (and other things). Even though I do often find myself shouted down, I've spoken to many non-rail transport professionals who do share my views, noticeably (and hardly surprisingly!) a lot more so than on this forum

To summarise though, when I challenge others on this forum it is always intended to be constructive, in the hope that they might see things from another perspective. However, this is often an uphill task!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'm not sure why you would say this. I often disagree with #Bald Rick but I still appreciate the contributions, which are generally more informative and polite than many.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2026 ==


Interesting that you say this. I've had comments questioned by moderators on a few occasions, which make me think that if comments made by everyone were scrutinised and questioned to the degree that some of mine have, then they must be incredibly busy.

Then again, I guess that challenging things like HS2, and suggesting that it should have been designed and managed better, is always going to be an uphill task on a site which is all about heavy rail, and thus populated largely by those with a heavy rail background and related interests

Personally I do enjoy engaging with people on this site who make constructive comments about railways (and other things). Even though I do often find myself shouted down, I've spoken to many non-rail transport professionals who do share my views, noticeably (and hardly surprisingly!) a lot more so than on this forum

To summarise though, when I challenge others on this forum it is always intended to be constructive, in the hope that they might see things from another perspective. However, this is often an uphill task!

I meant the speculative ideas threads. There’s no point in people reading ‘Speculative Ideas’ and getting annoyed to see speculative ideas.

 

[Krokodil]

Then again, I guess that challenging things like HS2, and suggesting that it should have been designed and managed better, is always going to be an uphill task on a site which is all about heavy rail, and thus populated largely by those with a heavy rail background and related interests

No one is denying that the project has had issues. Some internal, some political, some outside the control of anyone in the UK.

What we are saying is that soundbites that seek to imply that the project will be of no benefit to anyone north of Birmingham are dishonest. They're just as dishonest and lazy as the ones claiming that the project is solely to get people to Birmingham 10 minutes quicker.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not sure why you would say this. I often disagree with #Bald Rick but I still appreciate the contributions, which are generally more informative and polite than many.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2026 ==


Interesting that you say this. I've had comments questioned by moderators on a few occasions, which make me think that if comments made by everyone were scrutinised and questioned to the degree that some of mine have, then they must be incredibly busy.

Then again, I guess that challenging things like HS2, and suggesting that it should have been designed and managed better, is always going to be an uphill task on a site which is all about heavy rail, and thus populated largely by those with a heavy rail background and related interests

Personally I do enjoy engaging with people on this site who make constructive comments about railways (and other things). Even though I do often find myself shouted down, I've spoken to many non-rail transport professionals who do share my views, noticeably (and hardly surprisingly!) a lot more so than on this forum

To summarise though, when I challenge others on this forum it is always intended to be constructive, in the hope that they might see things from another perspective. However, this is often an uphill task!

A fair assessment and whilst (at least in HS2) I feel that we often disagree, I feel that our discussions are generally that and not antagonist or cause offence.

My generally view of your stance is that HS2 is bad, however a lot of that is down to miss management rather than there not being a need for a North South railway.

Hopefully I present my view well - that HS2 is what we have on the table for that North South railway and so after the construction started (so speculation about other routes can be tricky to define what is "best" at a micro level, although can give opinions - like the debate on via Heathrow, where I feel that the benefits of directly serving it with "HS2" would be costly and the benefits would only be for some and even then fairly limited) the case for a different option becomes something which needs to be significantly better to justify the change (for example I'm pragmatic about the reduced top speed as that could be delivered at some later date, it's just been decoupling from the critical path of starting services).

Obviously, the miss management isn't ideal but it's likely that a lot of that would have been the case whatever major infrastructure project is being discussed, be that HS2 (as currently being built) or "HS2" (being any High Speed rail line being the one to be built after HS1) or Crossrail or NPR (although I do note isn't the case for TPU - but I suspect that's because it's not "political" in that few would argue against it and it's not something which politicians are likely even aware of, let alone feel that they need to "fix" - the latter being a lot of the problems HS2 has had, as the politicians want to change the infrastructure but it's the fundamentals around how it's being delivered - i.e. it's the lack of planning reforms rather than how many platforms there are at Euston).

 

[The Planner]

I meant the speculative ideas threads. There’s no point in people reading ‘Speculative Ideas’ and getting annoyed to see speculative ideas.

Then its going to be tumbleweed as if no one can disagree, whats the point?

 

[Shrop]

A fair assessment and whilst (at least in HS2) I feel that we often disagree, I feel that our discussions are generally that and not antagonist or cause offence.

My generally view of your stance is that HS2 is bad, however a lot of that is down to miss management rather than there not being a need for a North South railway.

Hopefully I present my view well - that HS2 is what we have on the table for that North South railway and so after the construction started (so speculation about other routes can be tricky to define what is "best" at a micro level, although can give opinions - like the debate on via Heathrow, where I feel that the benefits of directly serving it with "HS2" would be costly and the benefits would only be for some and even then fairly limited) the case for a different option becomes something which needs to be significantly better to justify the change (for example I'm pragmatic about the reduced top speed as that could be delivered at some later date, it's just been decoupling from the critical path of starting services).

Obviously, the miss management isn't ideal but it's likely that a lot of that would have been the case whatever major infrastructure project is being discussed, be that HS2 (as currently being built) or "HS2" (being any High Speed rail line being the one to be built after HS1) or Crossrail or NPR (although I do note isn't the case for TPU - but I suspect that's because it's not "political" in that few would argue against it and it's not something which politicians are likely even aware of, let alone feel that they need to "fix" - the latter being a lot of the problems HS2 has had, as the politicians want to change the infrastructure but it's the fundamentals around how it's being delivered - i.e. it's the lack of planning reforms rather than how many platforms there are at Euston).

Thanks for the reply. My thoughts on HS2 haven't really changed over the years, except in levels of increasing despair about the whole thing. I will attempt to summarise my thoughts as follows, to explain why I remain unhappy with HS2, and indeed with those who find it so hard to accept that it should have been done differently right from the start.

Fundamentally, I have never doubted that a new North-South route is essential for the UK - I have often taken an interest in designing a route, well before HS2 was announced. However, there are many on this forum who seem to enjoy a default position of labelling any proposal that disagrees with their own, as being that of a crayonista, without really giving sufficient thought to anything else.

For the benefit of those who might believe I have insufficient knowledge due to not being a railway employee, my career was in land transport generally, with plenty of rail involvement. Indeed I might counter that those involved directly in the rail industry might not be as aware as they should be, about all surrounding issues.

I have never been convinced that the right route is via the Chilterns. The North-South population centres lie close to the M1 corridor, which is why that route should have been given a good deal more credibility than it ever was.

The Chiltern route was chosen for 3 reasons, perhaps anyone who disagrees could explain why they do. In no particular priority order these were

Because of fewer population centres and therefore a perception of less resistance​

​

In order to serve Heathrow as a means of gaining political support so that a third runway could be avoided. Boris, with his interests lying strongly in the Uxbridge area, was aspiring to become London mayor just when the route was being proposed. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Later, “serving” was changed to running nearby.​

​

Because almost 100% of the emphasis was put on providing capacity relief to London-Birmingham, with the benefits to Manchester, Leeds and beyond being very much add-ons. Phases 2a and 2b were designed with Phase 1 being a given, so the easiest route to Birmingham was chosen as first priority​

With this reasoning, the disasters that followed were always going to happen. The resistance to the Chiltern route was grossly underestimated, and with the “hindsight” (which was actually forewarned but dismissed along with other “crayonista” thinking), the expensive tunnelling isn’t so far off what would have been needed for the M1 route.

With the funding having rocketed, Phases 2a and 2b were always going to be vulnerable. Starting in the north would have completely avoided this because London was never going to miss out under any circumstances.

Birmingham should have been served by a spur, not as the terminal point of Phase 1. The fundamental benefit of capacity relief for WCML would have achieved this, but placing capacity relief for London-Birmingham as the main priority for an HSR project for the UK was always ill-conceived.

There were always better ways of relieving the southern section of the WCML, rather than designing an HSR scheme for the whole of the UK around it.

I don’t doubt for a moment that some will disagree with me, but I’m always happy to listen to their reasoning!

 

[Zomboid]

With this reasoning, the disasters that followed were always going to happen. The resistance to the Chiltern route was grossly underestimated, and with the “hindsight” (which was actually forewarned but dismissed along with other “crayonista” thinking), the expensive tunnelling isn’t so far off what would have been needed for the M1 route.

I think there were good reasons to pick the Chiltern route - largely the lack of population. Had they gone along the M1 then there would have been a lot of pressure to provide stations at MK etc, and fighting that off may well have been expensive and time consuming.

The M1 would have presented different advantages and disadvantages. Maybe it would have been better, maybe it would have been worse, really hard to say now.

 

[SynthD]

I think there were good reasons to pick the Chiltern route - largely the lack of population. Had they gone along the M1 then there would have been a lot of pressure to provide stations at MK etc, and fighting that off may well have been expensive and time consuming.

That appears to be a major part of the push. I haven’t yet spotted an advocate for the M1 route say it should be non stop London to Birmingham.

At one point the New North Main Line route (OOC to South Ruislip) was going to be used at surface level. It was considered easier, cheaper, for a while. What’s the M1 route version of that? The OOC station will relieve Euston, does the M1 route have an Elizabeth/Overground station? A route we know in great detail will always seem better than one that hasn’t had serious inspection.

Birmingham should have been served by a spur, not as the terminal point of Phase 1. The fundamental benefit of capacity relief for WCML would have achieved this, but placing capacity relief for London-Birmingham as the main priority for an HSR project for the UK was always ill-conceived.

It is served by a spur, but I guess you want the spur to be longer, to start near Leicester. The intended tph for the full network tells us that Crewe and beyond is the main priority even if the first northbound destination has the most services. This lines up with the need, the congestion on the southern WCML that affects the northern half too.

 

[Zomboid]

hat appears to be a major part of the push. I haven’t yet spotted an advocate for the M1 route say it should be non stop London to Birmingham

The thing is, there's already a railway which links London and Birmingham broadly following the M1 with stations in the major population centres, and the fact that it's full is why another line is needed.

The route is secondary to the purpose - getting trains which don't need to stop off the southern WCML. If the M1 corridor option would have to provide intermediate stations (Shin Milton Keynes!) in order to be progressed then that would increase cost (compared to plain line) whilst duplicating stations and services and reducing capacity as trains have to call.

I can certainly understand why that option wasn't taken. A stationless route along the M1 or M40 corridor may well have worked out better, but we'll never know for sure.

 

[JamesT]

That appears to be a major part of the push. I haven’t yet spotted an advocate for the M1 route say it should be non stop London to Birmingham.

At one point the New North Main Line route (OOC to South Ruislip) was going to be used at surface level. It was considered easier, cheaper, for a while. What’s the M1 route version of that? The OOC station will relieve Euston, does the M1 route have an Elizabeth/Overground station? A route we know in great detail will always seem better than one that hasn’t had serious inspection.

The M1 is the wrong direction for Elizabeth Line, but perhaps Brent Cross would substitute? It looks a vaguely similar distance out, and you have transfer opportunities to Thameslink and the Northern Line. No big empty space like OOC to build a station though.

No connectivity with Heathrow or the Southwest like OOC provides.

 

[Zomboid]

The M1 is the wrong direction for Elizabeth Line, but perhaps Brent Cross would substitute? It looks a vaguely similar distance out, and you have transfer opportunities to Thameslink and the Northern Line. No big empty space like OOC to build a station though.

No connectivity with Heathrow or the Southwest like OOC provides.

I think if it must follow a motorway, the M40 is a better bet. OOC has crossrail, which is probably the best line on the tube map for shifting lots of people, and it's very close to the end of the A40. The existing route as far as West Ruislip would probably be suitable.

 

[Palmerston]

I think if it must follow a motorway, the M40 is a better bet. OOC has crossrail, which is probably the best line on the tube map for shifting lots of people, and it's very close to the end of the A40. The existing route as far as West Ruislip would probably be suitable.

Were the route to follow the M40, when you get close to Birmingham, if you follow the motorway to the south-west of Warwick and Leamington Spa, the route north will be less simple, certainly less direct. If you go north of these town, away from the M40, that's back on the current HS2 route, but via a longer path. You also can't go through the middle of High Wycombe so a tunnel under the Chilterns would appear to be just as likely. I'm not sure which bits of the M40 are particularly useful to align with.

 

[FMerrymon]

Were the route to follow the M40, when you get close to Birmingham, if you follow the motorway to the south-west of Warwick and Leamington Spa, the route north will be less simple, certainly less direct. If you go north of these town, away from the M40, that's back on the current HS2 route, but via a longer path. You also can't go through the middle of High Wycombe so a tunnel under the Chilterns would appear to be just as likely. I'm not sure which bits of the M40 are particularly useful to align with.

A very good video explaining exactly that

 

[Zomboid]

High Wycombe is in a rather hilly location so chances are it'd be a tunnel there, and another one (or the same one but longer) would be needed to deal with the big hill at Stokenchurch/ Lewknor.

I'm not saying that the M40 would be a good route, but I think it would be better than the M1 in some ways. Either motorway version would mean rebuilding loads of motorway junctions, if done to closely follow the road, HS1 style. That would cost a lot and the construction would disrupt many more people than the up the middle through empty space route that was actually chosen

Ultimately a route between the two was chosen by people much more expert in their field than posters on this forum, with access to information that we don't have. Maybe they were wrong, but whatever route probably wouldn't have been smooth sailing.

 

[Mr. SW]

Some years ago, before I discovered the delights of Google Maps and stuff, my thoughts were that HS2 would follow the M1 out of London. It would start from St Pancras (!) or Euston, follow the Midland main line underground from West Hampstead to Staples Corner where there would be a subsurface interchange built under the sidings at Cricklewood about where the new Brent Cross West station is now. Then it would continue thusly, following the M1 corridor to a point just south of Scratchwood* Services before striding out to the north west, rising above ground by Allum Lane Elstree ,clipping the north east corner of Aldenham Park, before dropping into another tunnel under the west side of Radlett. A little way north, it would emerge again to cross the River Ver on a viaduct near Smug Oak. Then it would roughly follow the M1 (curves, radii, those things), skirting Redbourn to the west, running into a short tunnel near Markyate, running between Luton and Dunstable on a paired viaduct over the M1 before splitting away from the M1 near Toddington to ease away to the west, clipping Milton Keynes.

OR

From Brent Cross, veering to the north east before running under the leafy suburbs of Metro-Land in a bang straight tunnel to the Misbourne Valley at Amersham with a viaduct over the River Colne.

Both of these schemes would have needed the Dudding Hill Line to be fully upgraded to accommodate services to Heathrow, but there would be no connection to the Elizabeth Line.

So my conclusion is this, which I will type quietly to avoid controversy and undue argument: They got it right.

* Stop laughing at the back there: Now renamed London Gateway Services.

 

[The Ham]

Thanks for the reply. My thoughts on HS2 haven't really changed over the years, except in levels of increasing despair about the whole thing. I will attempt to summarise my thoughts as follows, to explain why I remain unhappy with HS2, and indeed with those who find it so hard to accept that it should have been done differently right from the start.

Fundamentally, I have never doubted that a new North-South route is essential for the UK - I have often taken an interest in designing a route, well before HS2 was announced. However, there are many on this forum who seem to enjoy a default position of labelling any proposal that disagrees with their own, as being that of a crayonista, without really giving sufficient thought to anything else.

For the benefit of those who might believe I have insufficient knowledge due to not being a railway employee, my career was in land transport generally, with plenty of rail involvement. Indeed I might counter that those involved directly in the rail industry might not be as aware as they should be, about all surrounding issues.

I have never been convinced that the right route is via the Chilterns. The North-South population centres lie close to the M1 corridor, which is why that route should have been given a good deal more credibility than it ever was.

The Chiltern route was chosen for 3 reasons, perhaps anyone who disagrees could explain why they do. In no particular priority order these were

Because of fewer population centres and therefore a perception of less resistance​

​

In order to serve Heathrow as a means of gaining political support so that a third runway could be avoided. Boris, with his interests lying strongly in the Uxbridge area, was aspiring to become London mayor just when the route was being proposed. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Later, “serving” was changed to running nearby.​

​

Because almost 100% of the emphasis was put on providing capacity relief to London-Birmingham, with the benefits to Manchester, Leeds and beyond being very much add-ons. Phases 2a and 2b were designed with Phase 1 being a given, so the easiest route to Birmingham was chosen as first priority​

With this reasoning, the disasters that followed were always going to happen. The resistance to the Chiltern route was grossly underestimated, and with the “hindsight” (which was actually forewarned but dismissed along with other “crayonista” thinking), the expensive tunnelling isn’t so far off what would have been needed for the M1 route.

With the funding having rocketed, Phases 2a and 2b were always going to be vulnerable. Starting in the north would have completely avoided this because London was never going to miss out under any circumstances.

Birmingham should have been served by a spur, not as the terminal point of Phase 1. The fundamental benefit of capacity relief for WCML would have achieved this, but placing capacity relief for London-Birmingham as the main priority for an HSR project for the UK was always ill-conceived.

There were always better ways of relieving the southern section of the WCML, rather than designing an HSR scheme for the whole of the UK around it.

I don’t doubt for a moment that some will disagree with me, but I’m always happy to listen to their reasoning!

Thanks, I was aware that you wanted a different route, but didn't want to miss remember when taking about my understanding of your view, so kept it brief.

As I've said, I'm fairly neutral about routing options. I can see that with the current Old Oak Common station that there's potential for other rail improvements to intact with it (the key one being the Southern Approach to Heathrow giving much of the Outer Suburban and longer distance SWR services a route to HS2 where it's at most 2 changes to get to anywhere served by HS2 services).

That's not to say that there couldn't be a similar situation with an alternative Outer London hub (indeed, I've also discussed the options of where this could be if there was a HS East Coast line and how Old Oak Common, this other hub and Stratford could be linked by HS Wales and West rather than it heading into a central station to provide better links to HS1).

Like yourself my professional experience is land transport, but not rail. Whilst my specialism is generally focused around active travel, by working in smaller companies I'm a bit of a generalist, in that I've also designed motorway junctions, strategiezed the best options for bus routes, designed drainage schemes, undertaken traffic surveys, checked junction capacity, created cost estimates, consulted with service providers, held other consultants to account when being a clients representative, used my professional expertise to hold a council to account when they wanted to cut school buses and make children walk 3 miles on a route which wasn't suitable (although defended the officers when they suggested a proposal which was sensible when the local councillors were unconvinced of what was being suggested and could point to a real world example of it) and more. However, no experience of rail.

Although, my view on the along a motorway would be that you're adding complexity in the form of a lot of bridges close to existing infrastructure, which limits the designers ability to use the natural ground and earthworks to deliver the scheme, which risks increasing costs.

Therefore, I'm sceptical that a motorway aligned route might be as cheap as a route away from infrastructure and whilst I'm open to why this scepticism isn't valid I've not noticed where anyone has tried to deal with this point (it maybe it's been discussed and I've just missed it).

As I've said, happy to discuss options (especially in a speculative forum) although my general position is that any change needs to come with a good reason.

In the same way that there's a "do nothing", "do minimum" (such as an existing approved scheme) and "do something". Basically, I'd be looking for justification for the "do something" - where there's a change to the "do minimum", even though the "do minimum" could still be just one of many options.