Burnham proposes revival of HS2 Birmingham-Manchester funded by land value capture

cle · 17 Jun 2026

GRALISTAIR said:
Well I am glad Burnham is actually raising the topic.

Exactly - why would everyone dump on him for trying to correct a really bad decision. Which would also benefit his city as Mayor (as is his current mandate) - so of course he would advocate for this.

Hixon would be helpful, but really getting HS2 back to Crewe is the gamechanger. Hixon would enable via Stoke trains (not everything would have space via Crewe) - so a combination would be amazing.

Birmingham-Manchester would probably remain in some shape or form, as its components are all needed for frequency throughout. Maybe it would take on a more semi-fast pattern, or even out some calls with the Liverpool/s and Salop/Wales services in the Wolves corridor.

RailUK Forums

pr1 · 17 Jun 2026

AlexSJW said:
Liverpool needs its metro finished after 46 years. Manchester needs it trams extending. Southampton/Portsmouth, Leeds and Bristol need tram networks. What we do not need is another fast line to London

This general policy, that the North needs its own priorities before another line to London, was the core reason given by Rishi Sunak to cancel the Manchester section. In grand British style, everything else in his speech appears to have been jettisoned. Not just the policies you say (will Metrolink ever get to Stockport? will the good folk of Woodchurch/Prenton only get a TfW station to Bidston or will the effort be put in to get trains into Birkenhead? etc etc) but so much about finding regional policies and funding them (Restoring Your Railway, we never knew you)

Burnham is in electioneering mode. I doubt he really means that Manchester will get everything while the rest of the North will get nothing if he doesn't want these words quoted back to him on his journey into Number 10.

Palmerston · 17 Jun 2026

Has anyone asked Burnham if Bradford needs a through station?

AlexSJW · 17 Jun 2026

A S Leib said:
Support for HS2 is currently around even, with ambivalence winning, but with starting it and not carrying on past Birmingham being far less popular (as of 2023).

At a billion a mile HS2 is not popular at all, especially when energy and rent prices are thru the roof and Sunak quite rightly wanted it fully scrapped. The only reason it survived in any form was that it would cost as much to bin it than keep it. The OOC to Aylesbury section could have been retained as construction was advanced, then the Chiltern could be upgraded, as it needs it anyhow, with the bonus of taking the Birmingham and West Mids trains off the WCML.

Do you think the people of Makerfield in Wigan care a hoot about another fast line to London from Manchester? The WCML runs thru Makerfield with trains from Wigan to London and many other places available, they are nationally well connected. They care about local/regional rail.

A S Leib · 17 Jun 2026

AlexSJW said:
They care about local/regional rail.

For which there is far less capacity than would be the case than with HS2.

RUK · 17 Jun 2026

Does re-instating HS2 phase 2 have any effect on the current plans for Euston? Will they have to change back to a larger station?

FMerrymon · 17 Jun 2026

RUK said:
Does re-instating HS2 phase 2 have any effect on the current plans for Euston? Will they have to change back to a larger station?

Shouldn't. 10 trains an hour was expected with phase 2a. With golborne, it was expected to be 11 trains an hour. 6 platforms will service 10 trains an hour, might be able to squeeze in the 11th. The additional platforms were mostly for the eastern branch.

HSTEd · 17 Jun 2026

RUK said:
Does re-instating HS2 phase 2 have any effect on the current plans for Euston? Will they have to change back to a larger station?

No, nine platforms would be more than enough to run the service given the loss of the eastern leg - even when people inevitably use HS2 to reach Leeds via Manchester.

Palmerston · 17 Jun 2026

RUK said:
Does re-instating HS2 phase 2 have any effect on the current plans for Euston? Will they have to change back to a larger station?

Is the station size not basically set? More than 6 HS2 platforms just means less classic Euston platforms?

Kingston Dan · 17 Jun 2026

AlexSJW said:
At a billion a mile HS2 is not popular at all, especially when energy and rent prices are thru the roof and Sunak quite rightly wanted it fully scrapped. The only reason it survived in any form was that it would cost as much to bin it than keep it. The OOC to Aylesbury section could have been retained as construction was advanced, then the Chiltern could be upgraded, as it needs it anyhow, with the bonus of taking the Birmingham and West Mids trains off the WCML.

Do you think the people of Makerfield in Wigan care a hoot about another fast line to London from Manchester? The WCML runs thru Makerfield with trains from Wigan to London and many other places available, they are nationally well connected. They care about local/regional rail.

The people of Wigan almost certainly want infrastructure investment in the north of England rather than the south which is phase one and the ludicrous Sunak's 'Network North' proposal. It's not a billion pounds a mile - the cost includes things like stations and trains that international comparisons exclude btw. The section from Handsacre to Crewe is vital, protected and cheap and anyone who knows anything knows it is vital to the future of the UK rail network. And I'm glad Burnham knows his stuff on this (at least).

JamesT · 17 Jun 2026

Palmerston said:
Is the station size not basically set? More than 6 HS2 platforms just means less classic Euston platforms?

No, the 10 platform design didn’t impinge any further on the classic station. There’s been no indication that a final design has been chosen, but the question has become how big a box they will build. The hope is they will go large enough that more platforms could be fitted later. But there have been other threads on this.

squingo44 · 18 Jun 2026

Manchester Piccadilly station better be an underground through station.

AlexSJW · 18 Jun 2026

squingo44 said:
Manchester Piccadilly station better be an underground through station.

Why? I see no need at all for that. Just extra expense - money which can be used for other beneficial rail projects. Entering a city in a cavernous station is far impressive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2026 ==

Kingston Dan said:
The section from Handsacre to Crewe is vital, protected and cheap and anyone who knows anything knows it is vital to the future of the UK rail network. And I'm glad Burnham knows his stuff on this (at least).

Capacity, capacity, they shout. If capacity was such an urgent problem, HS2 would be built ASAP, not in ten years time, so that section is not so vital as you might think. A WCML Stafford bypass is needed for many reasons safety being one of them, by extending HS2 from Fradley to Hixon, then a flying junction just before Stone then running to another flying junction onto the WCML north of Norton Bridge. Sorted. Liverpool and Manchester will have London journey times of around 1.5 hrs. Excellent. And not costing a billion per mile.

InTheEastMids · 18 Jun 2026

JamesT said:
No, the 10 platform design didn’t impinge any further on the classic station. There’s been no indication that a final design has been chosen, but the question has become how big a box they will build. The hope is they will go large enough that more platforms could be fitted later. But there have been other threads on this.

The last thing I saw was the London Centric story (6 full length and 4 short platforms), but London Centric were told (by TfL) that these concepts were out of date.

Kingston Dan said:
The section from Handsacre to Crewe is vital, protected and cheap

squingo44 said:
Manchester Piccadilly station better be an underground through station.

Can't imagine the business case for the works envisaged by the bill (lots of tunnelling, 4 platforms at the Airport and 6 at Piccadilly) will wash its face without trains from Birmingham and London via HS2.
So various Government sources, and people like Burnham are talking about Birmingham to Manchester, because they know they have to do it, but need time and space from HS2 to detoxify it.

Or just not build anything. Doing nothing is always an option

HSTEd · 18 Jun 2026

Kingston Dan said:
The section from Handsacre to Crewe is vital, protected and cheap and anyone who knows anything knows it is vital to the future of the UK rail network. And I'm glad Burnham knows his stuff on this (at least).

I think there is precious little evidence that it would be "cheap".

Even HS2 put the cost at "up to" £7bn before it was cancelled, and that was several years ago now.
Given the runaway cost growth that has continued since then, I can't see it coming in south of £10bn now, and probably substantially north of that.

It's not going to have great returns on investment, and in case any going to Hixon would get you a very large chunk of what you'd get anyway.

It'd get you multiple additional paths per hour through the Stafford bottleneck and convert Colwich/Shugborough into just a four-into-two tunnel.

EDIT:

If I'm reading the sectional appendix correctly, the line from Stafford to Crewe and the line from Birmingham to Stoke could be run separately without any flat crossing moves at Stafford , so a timetable could be concocted that would minimise the number of crossing moves at Stafford (to just freight) and pretty comprehensively mitigate the bottleneck.

AlexSJW · 18 Jun 2026

InTheEastMids said:
Or just not build anything. Doing nothing is always an option

But a very poor option. If Bunham wants a fast Birmingham to Manchester link, as PM, if he gets the job, he would want to give an equal service to Liverpool, as his focus will not be just Manchester any longer. He can, by building the Stafford bypass, but by extending HS2 11 miles from Fradley to Hixon - he did say _HS2._ He then gives fast services from Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester, using HS2 from Curzon St to Stone then WCML to Liverpool and to Manchester via Stoke.

BTW, does anyone have any idea how long the journey time will be from Birmingham to Manchester, using HS2 to Hixon then the rest of the trip via Stoke?

HSTEd · 18 Jun 2026

AlexSJW said:
BTW, does anyone have any idea how long the journey time will be from Birmingham to Manchester, using HS2 to Hixon then the rest of the trip via Stoke?

Obviously it depends on what path you got, but I did come up with an estimate a while back that if the Manchester-Stoke stopper was extended to Birmingham Curzon Street via Handsacre it would be competitive (or somewhat faster than) with the existing classic journey time end to end. A faster path would be faster.

But probably a couple minutes faster than via Handsacre for a link at Hixon.

The Planner · 18 Jun 2026

HSTEd said:
It'd get you multiple additional paths per hour through the Stafford bottleneck and convert Colwich/Shugborough into just a four-into-two tunnel.

EDIT:

If I'm reading the sectional appendix correctly, the line from Stafford to Crewe and the line from Birmingham to Stoke could be run separately without any flat crossing moves at Stafford , so a timetable could be concocted that would minimise the number of crossing moves at Stafford (to just freight) and pretty comprehensively mitigate the bottleneck.

Where are the multiple paths? Going to Hixon removes two crossing moves per hour?

WIth Stafford thats fine as long as you stay on the slows to Crewe, where you just move the crossing move to instead of Doxey.

HSTEd · 18 Jun 2026

The Planner said:
Where are the multiple paths? Going to Hixon removes two crossing moves per hour?

It removes two crossing moves from Colwich but it also removes interactions with Stafford from the HS2 route to Manchester entirely, so you can put Birmingham-Manchester trains through there without them going near the Stafford station complex. Whilst the flat junction at Stone certainly isn't quiet it seems less crowded than some on realtime trains at least, although "several" might be optimistic.

The Planner said:
WIth Stafford thats fine as long as you stay on the slows to Crewe, where you just move the crossing move to instead of Doxey.

Well if you are coming from Handsacre don't you just stay on the DSF/USF, pass between platforms 1 and 3 (using them if stopping) and then up the UF/DF through Norton Bridge junction?

Wouldn't switching to the slows force a crossing move with the trains running Birmingham-Stoke which would predominantly use Platform 4 and 5 at Stafford?

My conception here is that Birmingham Loop trains pretty much will all go towards Stoke, joining the Stone-Colwich(/Hixon) line at Stone, and trains from Handsacre will essentially all go towards Crewe. Traffic from Birmingham to the Northern WCML would be rerouted into Curzon Street.

EDIT:

These line designations are taken from the National Electronic Sectional appendix, North Western (North) pg 154/1119.

The Planner · 18 Jun 2026

HSTEd said:
It removes two crossing moves from Colwich but it also removes interactions with Stafford from the HS2 route to Manchester entirely, so you can put Birmingham-Manchester trains through there without them going near the Stafford station complex. Whilst the flat junction at Stone certainly isn't quiet it seems less crowded than some on realtime trains at least, although "several" might be optimistic.

It still leaves 1 Manchester via Stafford if you keep the current routings. If the proposal is to send 3tph via Stoke you'll run into problems relatively quickly around Stoke. You will still have a Birmingham Manchester via Stafford.

HSTEd said:
Well if you are coming from Handsacre don't you just stay on the DSF/USF, pass between platforms 1 and 3 (using them if stopping) and then up the UF/DF through Norton Bridge junction?

Wouldn't switching to the slows force a crossing move with the trains running Birmingham-Stoke which would predominantly use Platform 4 and 5 at Stafford?

My conception here is that Birmingham Loop trains pretty much will all go towards Stoke, joining the Stone-Colwich(/Hixon) line at Stone, and trains from Handsacre will essentially all go towards Crewe. Traffic from Birmingham to the Northern WCML would be rerouted into Curzon Street.

EDIT:

These line designations are taken from the National Electronic Sectional appendix, North Western (North) pg 154/1119.

I am talking about the Birmingham Scotland and Birmingham Liverpools which often use Doxey.

AlexSJW · 19 Jun 2026

HSTEd said:
Obviously it depends on what path you got, but I did come up with an estimate a while back that if the Manchester-Stoke stopper was extended to Birmingham Curzon Street via Handsacre it would be competitive (or somewhat faster than) with the existing classic journey time end to end. A faster path would be faster.

There are no stations between Colwich junction and Stone, so local trains can go via Stafford. That makes it better. If extending HS2 from Fradley to Hixon, two junctions can be removed, the HS2 junction to the WCML at Handsacre and the junction onto the Colwich-Stone section of track. The track from Hixon to Colwich jcn can be removed, eliminating a junction. High speed running can had right up until just before Stone, that is about 18 miles of track from Fradley.

So, from Curzon St to just before Stone only one junction at the delta junction. This make it a fast journey. Upgrade sections of track from Stone to Mcr and this should be quite a fast trip, easily outshining the existing service. All ballpark of course.

The Planner · 19 Jun 2026

AlexSJW said:
There are no stations between Colwich junction and Stone, so local trains can go via Stafford. That makes it better. If extending HS2 from Fradley to Hixon, two junctions can be removed, the HS2 junction to the WCML at Handsacre and the junction onto the Colwich-Stone section of track. The track from Hixon to Colwich jcn can be removed, eliminating a junction. High speed running can had right up until just before Stone, that is about 18 miles of track from Fradley.

So, from Curzon St to just before Stone only one junction at the delta junction. This make it a fast journey. Upgrade sections of track from Stone to Mcr and this should be quite a fast trip, easily outshining the existing service. All ballpark of course.

Presumably you are building onwards from Hixon as how are you getting to Scotland if you are taking Handsacre out?

HSTEd · 19 Jun 2026

AlexSJW said:
There are no stations between Colwich junction and Stone, so local trains can go via Stafford. That makes it better.

Assuming there is a path via Stafford. I bring up the Manchester-Stoke stopper purely because the path already exists through the mess of South Manchester, so is definitely available.

AlexSJW said:
If extending HS2 from Fradley to Hixon, two junctions can be removed, the HS2 junction to the WCML at Handsacre and the junction onto the Colwich-Stone section of track. The track from Hixon to Colwich jcn can be removed, eliminating a junction. High speed running can had right up until just before Stone, that is about 18 miles of track from Fradley.

That would leave you with no way to route HS2 trains to Liverpool or Northern WCML destinations, except by a tedious and very difficult to path route via Manchester or Alsager? Making the partially single track line via Alsager suitable for substantial traffic would cost more than building Handsacre!

You can convert Colwich junction into a simple four-track-into-two-track bottleneck, but I think you have to keep Handsacre.

Manutd1999 · 19 Jun 2026

HSTEd said:
That would leave you with no way to route HS2 trains to Liverpool or Northern WCML destinations, except by a tedious and very difficult to path route via Manchester or Alsager? Making the partially single track line via Alsager suitable for substantial traffic would cost more than building Handsacre!

You can convert Colwich junction into a simple four-track-into-two-track bottleneck, but I think you have to keep Handsacre.

The suggestion is to build an extra chord from Stone back to the WCML, creating a Stafford bypass. Trains would run on HS2 to Hixon, join the existing Colwich-Stone line (flying junction), then either head to Manchester via Stoke or onto the new chord (flat junction), rejoining the fast lines around Baldwins Gate (another flying junction).

Colwich would become a simple merger from 4- to 2-tracks (no conflicts) and Handsacare isn't required. Stafford loses it's HS2 services but everything else can run as planned, and the WCML gains a load of extra capacity south of Crewe.

camflyer · 20 Jun 2026

Mikey C said:
I quite agree that HS2 should continue on past its current "worst of both worlds" terminus, but don't see the relevance of Crossrail financing to this, as Crossrail had lots of stations and businesses along its route which directly benefited, whereas the whole point of high speed rail is to miss out settlements and businesses on the way.

If the Birmingham to Manchester leg is resurrected (and it should) then the best thing to do would be to totally separate it from the tarnished HS2 brand. Make it part of NPR (not a great brand either!) or something totally new.

This tweet from HS2 about the "connectivity network" is frankly embarrassing.

HS2 Ltd (@HS2ltd) on X

#HS2 isn't just a new railway — it's a gateway to Britain's wider transport network. At Old Oak Common, passengers will step off HS2 and straight onto the Elizabeth line. In Birmingham, Curzon Street will link to the tram network, while Interchange station will sit right next

x.com

#HS2 isn't just a new railway — it's a gateway to Britain's wider transport network.

At Old Oak Common, passengers will step off HS2 and straight onto the Elizabeth line. In Birmingham, Curzon Street will link to the tram network, while Interchange station will sit right next to Birmingham Airport. HS2 will play a key role in Britain's modern, integrated rail network — connecting people and places across the country. See the full map of connections below.

AlexSJW · 20 Jun 2026

HSTEd said:
Assuming there is a path via Stafford. I bring up the Manchester-Stoke stopper purely because the path already exists through the mess of South Manchester, so is definitely available.

That would leave you with no way to route HS2 trains to Liverpool or Northern WCML destinations, except by a tedious and very difficult to path route via Manchester or Alsager? Making the partially single track line via Alsager suitable for substantial traffic would cost more than building Handsacre!

You can convert Colwich junction into a simple four-track-into-two-track bottleneck, but I think you have to keep Handsacre.

A flying junction before Stone as 'HS2' ends will take the Liverpool, Lancs and Scots trains to the WCML to another flying junction just north of Norton Bridge.

Then Mcr trains are off the WCML entirely. It will also release paths thru Stafford for local trains. Colwich junction can be removed entirely befitting the WCML. Also the track from Colwich to Hixon can be removed.

A no-brainer.

AlexSJW · 20 Jun 2026

camflyer said:
If the Birmingham to Manchester leg is resurrected (and it should) then the best thing to do would be to totally separate it from the tarnished HS2 brand. Make it part of NPR (not a great brand either!) or something totally new.

This tweet from HS2 about the "connectivity network" is frankly embarrassing.

HS2 Ltd (@HS2ltd) on X

#HS2 isn't just a new railway — it's a gateway to Britain's wider transport network. At Old Oak Common, passengers will step off HS2 and straight onto the Elizabeth line. In Birmingham, Curzon Street will link to the tram network, while Interchange station will sit right next

x.com

The Birmingham to Mcr - and to Liverpool and Scotland - will have to go via Curzon St and to an HS2 junction outside of Stone. Hendy said HS2 should have been a part of the network not a separate brand and company being built by Network Rail. Then it can be called whatever, or called WCML Two.

AlexSJW · 20 Jun 2026

The Planner said:
Presumably you are building onwards from Hixon as how are you getting to Scotland if you are taston

The Planner said:
Presumably you are building onwards from Hixon as how are you getting to Scotland if you are taking Handsacre out?

A flying junction just before Stone then new tack to north of Norton Bridge where another flying junction takes Liverpool, Lancs and Scots trains onto the WCML. Then HS2 reaches Stone, then Mcr trains branch via Stone and Liverpool, Lancs and Scots trains toward the WCML. It is in one of Network Rails Stafford bypass alternatives near enough.

317 forever · 20 Jun 2026

AlexSJW said:
Burnham is assuming HS2 will raise land values enough to pay for it. All economists say it will not create economic growth.

Liverpool needs its metro finished after 46 years. Manchester needs it trams extending. Southampton/Portsmouth, Leeds and Bristol need tram networks. What we do not need is another fast line to London.

If he means a Stafford bypass extending from phase 1, that takes Manchester trains the short route via Stone on upgraded track and the Liverpool and Scots trains onto the WCML north of Norton Bridge, then that makes sense. The full HS2 phases 2A and 2B west? Then he needs therapy.

The word HS2 is toxic, a vote loser. What is he thinking of.

Perhaps he wants to be in the history books instead of Keir Starmer for leading this government to defeat in 2029 :lol:

AlexSJW · 20 Jun 2026

317 forever said:
Perhaps he wants to be in the history books instead of Keir Starmer for leading this government to defeat in 2029

Oh opinions. Wow.
Perhaps he wants to be in the history books instead of Keir Starmer for leading this government to victory in 2029

Burnham proposes revival of HS2 Birmingham-Manchester funded by land value capture

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation