HS2 Reset: Evidence to Transport Committee - 9 July 2025 "Total overspend on high-speed rail could be as much as 100%"

[66C]

I would imagine when Birmingham to Old Oak/Euston services get up and running and the public find out how wonderful HS2 is the pressure will be on to get it to Manchester and beyond. The capacity problems from Handsacre to Preston aren't going away and will still need delt with.

 

[FMerrymon]

I would imagine when Birmingham to Old Oak/Euston services get up and running and the public find out how wonderful HS2 is the pressure will be on to get it to Manchester and beyond. The capacity problems from Handsacre to Preston aren't going away and will still need delt with.

Safeguarding remains Crewe-Manchester and on the old Golborne link. Phase 2b remains retained. Building Liverpool-manchester without a connection to Crewe would be nuts (and exactly what the last government ridiculously proposed to do). Lets see what happens with that bill.

 

[AleDrinker]

Changing from HS2 at Birmingham would be slower than direct WCML services for essentially all journeys, so that's a non-starter. Saying that you aren't going to attempt to benefit passengers north of Birmingham or provide any capacity benefits on the WCML is an option, but it probably pulls you straight back into the question of whether it's even worth completing to Birmingham

I was working under the assumption that after HS2 opens it will no longer be possible to buy a ticket on a WCML "classic" service if you not going to be using one of the intermediate stations (Milton Keynes etc.)
So if you are travelling non stop between Euston and Birmingham then you MUST use HS2

Changing at Birmingham may be slower but would still remove the non stop traffic from the southern WCML, which was the point of HS2 in the first place?

 

[erikvd28]

I'm getting so sick of these delays and price increases, wonder if the Polish HSR or even the Russian one will be done faster than HS2 (which is even longer at 678km than the full original HS2 plan)

 

[JonathanH]

Changing at Birmingham may be slower but would still remove the non stop traffic from the southern WCML, which was the point of HS2 in the first place?

There isn't capacity on the existing network for all the WCML passenger flows to change trains in Birmingham.

If there is no connection to between HS2 and the classic network, the non-stop trains (other than some of those to Birmingham) aren't going to leave the Southern WCML.

So if you are travelling non stop between Euston and Birmingham then you MUST use HS2

HS2 isn't going to Euston anytime soon.

 

[HSTEd]

9.3bn in today's prices, with 1.3bn already spent, so around 8bn. The alignment's there, the hybrid bill is in place and gives the most value and maximises the return on the current investment.

Only £9.3bn if you assuem that the £7bn was an accurate estimate and that construction inflation is running the same as regular inflation. We know the latter isn't true and the former would be the first accurate cost estimate HS2 has made in a very long time!

The net cost is probably substantially greater than £8bn, and even £8bn is probably beyond today's government given the fiscal climate.

You can probably get to Hixon for ~£2-3bn or so.
That would provide a very large fraction of benefits from going to Crewe for much less money.

But ultimately I think it will just be Handsacre and that will be it.

 

[chris2]

It's highly unlikely that cancelling handsacre would get you a meaningful distance towards Crewe. Which is going to cost many billions.

HS2 put the cost at up to £7bn before it was cancelled. It will be more like £10bn now.

EDIT:
The lowest net cost way out of this mess would probably be to go to Hixon and accept severing the existing Stoke-Colwich line connection to the WCML. Services to Manchester etc run via Stoke and everything else uses Handsacre.

Even that will cost billions.

Yes, it's more money, but if that money adds proper capacity to Manchester / Liverpool / Glasgow etc onto phase 1, the whole line becomes way more valuable and useful.

And is it really that much money? With an annual spend of £7billion, 2a is a year and a bit more costs.

On top of this if, as you suggest, you build a shorter connection to Hixon, or a bit further to Baldwin's Gate, you would remove the expensive Whitmore tunnel and the extensive viaducts south of Crewe, Maybe save a billion losing Handsacre.... However exactly you do it, there's some form of an extension that can be cheaper than the full 2a route but that still turns HS2 into an actual step-change in capacity and reliability for journeys to the NW.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, it's more money, but if that money adds proper capacity to Manchester / Liverpool / Glasgow etc onto phase 1, the whole line becomes way more valuable and useful.

The problem is that the credibility of HS2 with the people who make these decisions is absolutely shot.
They have no real faith that HS2 actually can deliver, despite the "reset".

That is also why no private capital will be forthcoming on terms that are remotely acceptable to the state.
After all, a PFI railway will end up being paid for through track access charges that are functionally paid by the DfT.

And is it really that much money? With an annual spend of £7billion, 2a is a year and a bit more costs.

Again, assuming £7bn is accurate, perhaps it is not.
But at this point the government probably just wants the bleeding to stop.
They can't get out of building Phase 1 without paying huge contractual damages a this point.

They can get out of Phase 2.

On top of this if, as you suggest, you build a shorter connection to Hixon, or a bit further to Baldwin's Gate, you would remove the expensive Whitmore tunnel and the extensive viaducts south of Crewe, Maybe save a billion losing Handsacre.... However exactly you do it, there's some form of an extension that can be cheaper than the full 2a route but that still turns HS2 into an actual step-change in capacity and reliability for journeys to the NW.

Getting rid of Handsacre makes Hixon way more expensive because you would need an actual junction. I'm also skeptical how much you save in return for blocking Stoke traffic from HS2 permanently.
If you have Handsacre then Hixon doesn't need a classic line junction, you could just sever the connection between the Stone-Colwich line and WCML as there would be nothing to use it anyway.

 

[FMerrymon]

Only £9.3bn if you assuem that the £7bn was an accurate estimate and that construction inflation is running the same as regular inflation. We know the latter isn't true and the former would be the first accurate cost estimate HS2 has made in a very long time!

The net cost is probably substantially greater than £8bn, and even £8bn is probably beyond today's government given the fiscal climate.

You can probably get to Hixon for ~£2-3bn or so.
That would provide a very large fraction of benefits from going to Crewe for much less money.

But ultimately I think it will just be Handsacre and that will be it.

I used constrcution inflation. Construction inflation between q3 2019 and current prices (q2 2025) is 29.6%.

Quite a few assumptions there and I can make a few too, which is that the teams working now are getting more efficient in delivery, lessons are being learnt, better governance can be put in place. That section is simpler than other bits too.

Any change from the hybrid bill adds delay and further cost. Just build it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2025 ==

Its also unlikely they would use slab track for phase2a that was specified before. This would prevent expensive piling and other works for the accuracy required for slab, so should be delivered cheaper.

The credibility charge is a little unfair given the govt's behaviour with the line since build commenced and the issues around materials and labour.

 

[TrainTraveler]

I think the delay to the Handsacre section is best seen through the lens of the project annual spend limit (quoted as £7bn earlier in the thread).

It only needs to be complete when the service beyond Birmingham is ready to be tested and may be the first part of the 2a line so not spending money on it until it needs to be spent is a smart move.

Clearly prolonging the project increases overall costs (and that is a consequence of an annual spending limit lower that the "natural" spend rate) and delays the "project benefits realisation" but that's the financial world we are in.

 

[Tezza1978]

I think the delay to the Handsacre section is best seen through the lens of the project annual spend limit (quoted as £7bn earlier in the thread).

It only needs to be complete when the service beyond Birmingham is ready to be tested and may be the first part of the 2a line so not spending money on it until it needs to be spent is a smart move.

Clearly prolonging the project increases overall costs (and that is a consequence of an annual spending limit lower that the "natural" spend rate) and delays the "project benefits realisation" but that's the financial world we are in.

Agree with this. I think that once the initial line opens /is close to opening then public opinion/demand for extending it will quickly grow. The Elizabeth Line got absolute pelters in the press and huge delays and look how succesful and popular it is now.

I imagine the Northern Mayors will hold the govts feet to the fire on this in terms of a future "son of 2A" line in the future.... (and it isn't impossible that a certain Mr Burnham could well be in charge prior to the next election......)

 

[Grimsby town]

.You can probably get to Hixon for ~£2-3bn or so.
That would provide a very large fraction of benefits from going to Crewe for much less money.

How does Hixon solve the two track bottleneck through Shugborough or the fact Southbound freight trains have to cross both fast lanes to access the slow lines south of Colwich? Removing a couple of slow pendolinos an hour from Colwich is beneficial but surely the above issues are bigger capacity constrains and rejoining at Hixon wouldn't solve this.

 

[Nottingham59]

How does Hixon solve the two track bottleneck through Shugborough or the fact Southbound freight trains have to cross both fast lanes to access the slow lines south of Colwich? Removing a couple of slow pendolinos an hour from Colwich is beneficial but surely the above issues are bigger capacity constrains and rejoining at Hixon wouldn't solve this.

Taking HS2 to Hixon gives you four paths an hour through south Manchester to Manchester Piccadilly - two using the existing Avanti paths and two using the existing XC paths north of Stone. Plus a fifth path for a Macclesfield terminator. That's an awful lot of capacity avoiding Colwich.

And operations at Colwich are simplified by eliminating northbound trains heading to Stoke. Southbound freights still have to cross northbound fasts heading to Crewe, but the overall capacity of Colwich is increased from today by the simpler traffic pattern.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's a bit more background to the extended pause on the Delta-Handsacre section, in the Guardian piece on the subject.

Work to link HS2 to west coast mainline to be delayed for four more years

Decision to extend pause on 18-mile stretch north of Birmingham part of ‘reset’ to troubled rail project

www.theguardian.com

Plans for London Euston are yet to be finalised and rail industry leaders have warned that capacity constraints on the west coast mainline could mean having HS2 trains joining the network worsens existing services. It is understood that the latest deferral was partly needed to allow fuller consideration of how the challenges of running full services between central London and the north could be met.

It looks as though Peter Hendy and Network Rail are not happy with the HS2 plans to run onto the WCML, without a full review of the options and costs.
Hopefully this results in a sensible plan for capacity north of Handsacre.
It also means that the Old Oak-Curzon St service will be a derisory localised 2-3tph for a number of years before through running further north becomes available.

 

[HSTEd]

How does Hixon solve the two track bottleneck through Shugborough or the fact Southbound freight trains have to cross both fast lanes to access the slow lines south of Colwich? Removing a couple of slow pendolinos an hour from Colwich is beneficial but surely the above issues are bigger capacity constrains and rejoining at Hixon wouldn't solve this.

Well with what I am proposing, Colwich junction just becomes a simple conversion from four tracks to two. As far as I can tell from the sectional appendix there would be no crossing moves left at all.

Shugborough as a simple two track bottleneck with no crossing moves is likely to be much nicer to timetable than the status quo.
And as noted, you get a whole bunch of paths between Birmingham/London and Manchester not constrained by the whole mess at all.

EDIT:
Ah I think I see what you mean, the crossing moves in the south Stafford approach?

No, it doesn't really stop that, but its still a net gain of several paths.

 

[Nottingham59]

Well with what I am proposing, Colwich junction just becomes a simple conversion from four tracks to two. As far as I can tell from the sectional appendix there would be no crossing moves left at all.

Shugborough as a simple two track bottleneck with no crossing moves is likely to be much nicer to timetable than the status quo.
And as noted, you get a whole bunch of paths between Birmingham/London and Manchester not constrained by the whole mess at all.

You still have to get southbound freights from Crewe on the Slows through Stafford (which are on the west of the WCML alignment) onto the southbound slow line through Rugeley (on the east side of the WCML). So the freights have to cross somewhere, and currently that happens at Shugborough/Colwich. But freights can be stacked up between Stafford and Shugborough, and flighted through when there is a gap in the northbound passenger traffic.

 

[HSTEd]

You still have to get southbound freights from Crewe on the Slows through Stafford (which are on the west of the WCML alignment) onto the southbound slow line through Rugeley (on the east side of the WCML). So the freights have to cross somewhere, and currently that happens at Shugborough/Colwich. But freights can be stacked up between Stafford and Shugborough, and flighted through when there is a gap in the northbound passenger traffic.

If I'm reading this correctly, isn't this only a problem when the northbound passenger train is running non-stop?
Otherwise the train can be routed through platform 5 at Stafford and stay clear until the grade separated junction at Norton Bridge?

So..... if necessary I guess you might be able to get more paths with additional stops at Stafford, or tolerating a reduce speed passenger through Stafford (60mph rather than 110mph?)

EDIT:
That only partially saves you, because of the layout at Norton Bridge doesn't actually provide a conflict free way to move between the fasts and slows, except on the line towards Stoke..... Although the 'Slow' lines aren't really that slow, so it might still be tolerable.

 

[Grimsby town]

If I'm reading this correctly, isn't this only a problem when the northbound passenger train is running non-stop?
Otherwise the train can be routed through platform 5 at Stafford and stay clear until the grade separated junction at Norton Bridge?

So..... if necessary I guess you might be able to get more paths with additional stops at Stafford, or tolerating a reduce speed passenger through Stafford (60mph rather than 110mph?)

EDIT:
That only partially saves you, because of the layout at Norton Bridge doesn't actually provide a conflict free way to move between the fasts and slows, except on the line towards Stoke..... Although the 'Slow' lines aren't really that slow, so it might still be tolerable.

This is what I mean. The image below shows how southbound freight trains need to cross both fast lines through Shugborough. Removing Colwich movements is beneficial but isn't going to allow a significant increase in freight.

 

[absolutelymilk]

It also means that the Old Oak-Curzon St service will be a derisory localised 2-3tph for a number of years before through running further north becomes available.

What's stopping them from running say 4tph?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What's stopping them from running say 4tph?

I imagine they will be half-empty, with only local traffic.
The next thing will be the embarrassment of too many HS2 trains sitting idle at Washwood Heath for the service offered.

 

[JonathanH]

I imagine they will be half-empty, with only local traffic.
The next thing will be the embarrassment of too many HS2 trains sitting idle at Washwood Heath for the service offered.

The HS2 trains are at least compatible with the 'classic' railway so they can be used on the WCML, so long as they aren't actually delivered to Washwood Heath. The irony of that will be that they have to slow down the WCML timetable to accommodate them due to lack of tilt.

Presumably they will only need around 12 units in service, as double sets, for three trains an hour from Old Oak Common to Curzon Street?

It does seem rather odd that such a large fleet of trains was agreed so early in the programme with no particular 'get out' clause.

 

[SynthD]

I imagine they will be half-empty, with only local traffic.

Where local is London and Birmingham?

It does seem rather odd that such a large fleet of trains was agreed so early in the programme with no particular 'get out' clause.

Why would the project with cross party support waste money on get out clauses? Planning for future politicians changing their mind is not possible or desirable.

 

[absolutelymilk]

I imagine they will be half-empty, with only local traffic.

What makes you think that? Given the overcrowding and high prices on Avanti services, I think there will be plenty of demand for HS2 Birmingham-OOC which will be far quicker and more reliable (4tph on a segregated, new-build railway should be able to have Japanese levels of reliability). Don't forget that the Avanti Euston-Birmingham services are likely to go from 3tph to 1tph with more stops.

 

[Nottingham59]

Why would the project with cross party support waste money on get out clauses?

The get out clause was Phase 1, which didn't make financial sense by itself. It needed Phase 2 to generate any significant transport benefits.

Planning for future politicians changing their mind is not possible or desirable.

On the contrary, I'd say that HS2 deliberately committed to the expenditure as soon as possible in order to make it more expensive and politically difficult for politicians to cancel the project.

 

[fishwomp]

.. Given the overcrowding and high prices on Avanti services,

I've not travelled all the way from Brum to London to observe for myself - but I've experienced crowding when Coventry passengers join heading to Brum - which of course they can't do with HS2.
According to https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/BHM/ - daily Brum to various stops on WCML southbound passenger count:

1. Euston - 3819 [3 fast, 2 slow per hour]
2. Coventry - 3113 [4 fast, 2 slow per hour]
3. International - 1882 [4 fast, 2 slow]
4. Rugby - 551 [3 fast, 2 slow]
5. Northampton - 450 [2 slow]
5. Milton Keynes - 313 [3 fast, 2 slow]

Looks to me like a significant capacity gets churned or vacated at both International and Coventry when heading south as Cov to Euston is 1780 per day, International is 877 to Euston.
Would be interesting if current load factor along the route were available.

I think there will be plenty of demand for HS2 Birmingham-OOC which will be far quicker and more reliable (4tph on a segregated, new-build railway should be able to have Japanese levels of reliability). ...

If the stock is too slow for the north (no tilt) and unable to use HS2 without Handsacre - they'll be putting rolling stock in a siding which is already paid for and already has contracted usage... but running as many Brum to Londons as possible is not going to cost much more than doing nothing. *That* would be transformational.

How about 12 an hour, let TfL run it, make it Zone 6 travelcard region, and call it the Boris Line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What makes you think that? Given the overcrowding and high prices on Avanti services, I think there will be plenty of demand for HS2 Birmingham-OOC which will be far quicker and more reliable (4tph on a segregated, new-build railway should be able to have Japanese levels of reliability). Don't forget that the Avanti Euston-Birmingham services are likely to go from 3tph to 1tph with more stops.

The current 3tph Avanti 390s can be replaced by 3tph on HS2 with something like double the capacity.
Where do you think the additional passengers will come from, given some will stay with classic Euston services?
You will have the Elizabeth Line/GWR/Heathrow feed at OOC, but nothing at the northern end.
Interchange has an uncertain catchment area, but presumably mainly Solihull/Coventry/BHX.
Everyone else will have to change, and may prefer classic services.
I'm not saying 4tph is impossible, but I can't see the business case.

"High Avanti prices" - who do you think will be in charge of fares on HS2?
If not Avanti* then their equivalent in GBR who will need to show a return on the investment (just the odd £100bn by then).

* until things change, Avanti (West Coast Partnership) has a role in the planning of HS2 services.
That's why FS/Trenitalia were part of the franchise bid, which nominally included the startup of HS2 services..

 

[erikvd28]

Some good news:

HS2 opens twin Warwickshire cycle and road bridges | RailBusinessDaily

HS2 has opened two bridges near Leamington Spa carrying a key local road and a long-distance cycle track across the new high-speed railway. The Fosse Way HS2 has opened two bridges near Leamington Spa carrying a key local road and a long-distance cycle track across the new high-speed railway.

news.railbusinessdaily.com

HS2 has opened two bridges near Leamington Spa carrying a key local road and a long-distance cycle track across the new high-speed railway.


The Fosse Way bridge carries the B4455 across the railway near the village of Offchurch outside Leamington. It follows the route of a roman road between Exeter and Lincoln and is now used by local traffic between the villages around Leamington and Coventry.


It was opened several days after the nearby Offchurch Greenway bridge, which carries the popular walking and cycle path between Leamington and Rugby. The Greenway itself runs along the route of an abandoned railway line.

With the new bridges open, HS2’s contractors can begin the job of demolishing the old section of the road to make way for the cutting which will carry the new railway.

HS2 resumes London tunnel sites work after 'serious' near-miss | Construction News

HS2 has started a phased return to work at just over half its London tunnel sites, three weeks after work was suspended following a serious safety

www.constructionnews.co.uk

HS2 has started a phased return to work at just over half its London tunnel sites, three weeks after work was suspended following a serious safety incident.
Work had been halted since Monday 29 September, when a beam struck a crane basket with two workers inside, Construction News previously reported.
Now, a phased return to work has begun this week on 11 of HS2’s 19 tunnel sites in the capital.
A spokesperson for HS2 Ltd said: “Safety will always be our top priority which is why all works were halted on the London tunnels section of HS2 following a serious near-miss incident.
“We have now begun a safe, structured restart across some of these worksites following a comprehensive review of safety procedures and leadership.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The current 3tph Avanti 390s can be replaced by 3tph on HS2 with something like double the capacity.
Where do you think the additional passengers will come from, given some will stay with classic Euston services?
You will have the Elizabeth Line/GWR/Heathrow feed at OOC, but nothing at the northern end.
Interchange has an uncertain catchment area, but presumably mainly Solihull/Coventry/BHX.
Everyone else will have to change, and may prefer classic services.
I'm not saying 4tph is impossible, but I can't see the business case.

Post Phase 1 opening, there is likely to be only a 1tph Avanti service, stopping at more stations than currently so that nowhere loses their fast services. That will prompt a lot of people to change to HS2 services, but going from ~1h15m (plus inevitable delays) to 35 minutes (with delays much less likely) should drive a pretty big increase in itself. There's also the issue that Euston is a pretty horrible station to travel from, which puts a lot of people off - brand new trains from a very quiet station is likely to be much more appealing!

"High Avanti prices" - who do you think will be in charge of fares on HS2?
If not Avanti* then their equivalent in GBR who will need to show a return on the investment (just the odd £100bn by then).

Nothing to stop cheap advances to fill up the seats while leaving prices high for the business users booking with short notice! As others have said, as they already have the trains then the marginal cost of running more services is low, so they might as well fill them up!

 

[Krokodil]

One of the review learnings from earlier this year was that the scale of simultaneous HS2 works was also contributing to construction inflation (plant and labour availability)

And concrete?

 

[stuu]

"High Avanti prices" - who do you think will be in charge of fares on HS2?
If not Avanti* then their equivalent in GBR who will need to show a return on the investment (just the odd £100bn by then).

It depends what is more politically useful - getting some money in or avoiding media images of empty trains. I would hope the latter would be embarrassing for the government, but given opinion polls and everything a future government might be happy to have empty trains so they can say "told you so"