Restarting HS2a

[Snow1964]

Land is surely more than that. According to Google, of the estimated final cost of HS2 Phase 1 (between £45 Bn and £57 Bn), £1.25 Bn was spent buying land in London, particularly around Euston and Uxbridge. That means that over 2% of the total cost was buying land just in London. Total cost of buying properties (plus compensation to owners of blighted properties) over the whole route is over £ 3Bn and might reach £5 Bn. Those are not trivial sums even when set against the total cost of HS2. I think we can conclude that buying is a sufficiently big part of HS2's cost to make it important to keep under control.

Land price depends on status, green belt, agricultural etc. Sell a field and not worth much, sell a field with outline planning permission for homes and worth lot more, maybe 50 times more.

 

[Noddy]

The rich London landowners will have undoubtedly fought to get compensation for the inconvenience which I am suggesting you give a flat rate for to people elsewhere.

They will have been subject to exactly the same CPO process as everyone else.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I was speaking to a farmer affected by HS2 who has less than 1000 acres of land and there were 30 transactions to sell it.

No 30% premium like the French - and the money didn’t come quickly either.

I recall ten years ago that farmers are still waiting to be paid for the land they "sold" for the M6 toll !.

Beware paying a 30% premium for part of the project - there be the road to mission creep !.

So if I was transport secretary and I redid all the planning for HS2 phase 2 from scratch but did it properly would you be happy with that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2026 ==


Given they’ve only knocked down like 100 houses or something paying a few hundred thousand extra per house isn’t a big deal.

And you save on processing costs as they don’t fight it.

Euston - surely that has involved a hell of a lot more property than 100 houses ?.

Anyway with HS2 Phase 2a I was hoping things would be more straightforward. Its outside cities and I feel does not involve the NIMBYs of the Chilterns or SE England. South East England is a bad place to try building a railway line or road. I recall the French saying when they completed their High Speed route form Paris to the Channel Tunnel that of course across the channel it will be a lot harder and expensive because it is such a heavily populated area.

 

[slowroad]

No good evidence for high speed rail you say, and yet a great many internal UK flights still operate

Are you sure you belong on a rail forum with those views?
Yes HS2 has been hugely expensive, but it has cost far more than it ever needed to, if only it had been designed and managed in the joined up manner that it should have been, for the benefit and mobility of the UK population.
You should be striving for a better way of transport thinking, not defaulting to the misguided Reform type view.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The scope to displace flights within England is very limited, and could be largely delivered by other means. You assume I am anti-rail. Not at all - the prospects for rail have been damaged by diverting money away from projects that would have delivered more benefits to more people. And at the same time, the failure to deliver those benefits has, if anything, helped Reform.

 

[Shrop]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The scope to displace flights within England is very limited, and could be largely delivered by other means.

I don't understand what you mean here. What could be delivered by other means? Surely high speed rail has the most potential to attract people from flying, or are you saying something else?

You assume I am anti-rail. Not at all - the prospects for rail have been damaged by diverting money away from projects that would have delivered more benefits to more people. And at the same time, the failure to deliver those benefits has, if anything, helped Reform.

Again, what do you mean? Your response here, was to my comment that HS2 should have cost a lot less, if it had been designed and progressed with better thinking.
My challenge was to support more joined-up thinking for the benefit of the UK, it wasn't intended that you should find ways to to accept the failure that has happened in practice.

 

[Krokodil]

The scope to displace flights within England is very limited

Good job that HS2 services continue on to Scotland then.

 

[Noddy]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The scope to displace flights within England is very limited, and could be largely delivered by other means. You assume I am anti-rail. Not at all - the prospects for rail have been damaged by diverting money away from projects that would have delivered more benefits to more people. And at the same time, the failure to deliver those benefits has, if anything, helped Reform.

Do you mean England or the UK?

 

[slowroad]

I don't understand what you mean here. What could be delivered by other means? Surely high speed rail has the most potential to attract people from flying, or are you saying something else?

Again, what do you mean? Your response here, was to my comment that HS2 should have cost a lot less, if it had been designed and progressed with better thinking.
My challenge was to support more joined-up thinking for the benefit of the UK, it wasn't intended that you should find ways to to accept the failure that has happened in practice.

On the first I am saying that the number of intra-England trips by plane is low. So existing (limited) needs are being largely met, and the level of demand does not support the case for very expensive high speed rail to replace it. Also, if we are worried about these flights for environmental reasons we could just follow France and ban them if alternative rail journeys are available with under 3 hours duration - which they generally are within England

I agree that HS2 should have cost a lot less. But even if it had, there are a load of other rail projects that would have delivered better returns.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2026 ==

Do you mean England or the UK?

I did mean England. There is more scope to displace flights between London and Scotland, but a new high speed line is a very expensive way of delivering this - and even the full HS2 would have only have been a partial solution.

 

[Shrop]

On the first I am saying that the number of intra-England trips by plane is low. So existing (limited) needs are being largely met, and the level of demand does not support the case for very expensive high speed rail to replace it. Also, if we are worried about these flights for environmental reasons we could just follow France and ban them if alternative rail journeys are available with under 3 hours duration - which they generally are within England

I agree that HS2 should have cost a lot less. But even if it had, there are a load of other rail projects that would have delivered better returns.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2026 ==


I did mean England. There is more scope to displace flights between London and Scotland, but a new high speed line is a very expensive way of delivering this - and even the full HS2 would have only have been a partial solution.

HS2 should, and easily could have been designed so that most UK journeys would have been sub 3 hours. That includes London-Edinburgh.
The problem is, as I have always said, that the approach was so weak and unnecessarily piecemeal. Couple that with some misplaced objectives and an unsupportive Government and it was always doomed to fail.
But ... it SHOULD have been a great success. We just needed the right planning, sensible ministers and fair journalists. Hmm, maybe that always was too much to ask

 

[MatthewHutton]

Beware paying a 30% premium for part of the project - there be the road to mission creep

It worked for the French. They did land swaps for their farmers too.

 

[Noddy]

I did mean England. There is more scope to displace flights between London and Scotland, but a new high speed line is a very expensive way of delivering this - and even the full HS2 would have only have been a partial solution.

The discussion before this had largely been in reference to Britain/UK, and the post you responded to as wrong wrong wrong was explicit in referencing UK flights and mobility within the UK.

HS2 to Golborne delivers journey times from London to Scotland and Birmingham to Scotland in well below the magic 4hr market. Broadly Scotland to Euston is 3.40, Old Oak Common is 3.30, Curzon Street is 3.20, and Birmingham Interchange is 3.05. Potentially you’re talking of eliminating the majority of the London City and Birmingham markets and a chunk of the Heathrow market. That is all achieved as a byproduct of doing other stuff you want to do anyway and before you’ve built anything anywhere near Scotland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

Also, if we are worried about these flights for environmental reasons we could just follow France and ban them if alternative rail journeys are available with under 3 hours duration - which they generally are within England

There are very few internal flights anywhere in the UK where an alternative rail journey is available for less than 2.5 hours, which is what the French ban is.

 

[slowroad]

The discussion before this had largely been in reference to Britain/UK, and the post you responded to as wrong wrong wrong was explicit in referencing UK flights and mobility within the UK.

HS2 to Golborne delivers journey times from London to Scotland and Birmingham to Scotland in well below the magic 4hr market. Broadly Scotland to Euston is 3.40, Old Oak Common is 3.30, Curzon Street is 3.20, and Birmingham Interchange is 3.05. Potentially you’re talking of eliminating the majority of the London City and Birmingham markets and a chunk of the Heathrow market. That is all achieved as a byproduct of doing other stuff you want to do anyway and before you’ve built anything anywhere near Scotland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==



There are very few internal flights anywhere in the UK where an alternative rail journey is available for less than 2.5 hours, which is what the French ban is.

If the rationale for very high speed was to displace flights to/from Scotland then it should have been seen as unaffordable from the outset. And some displacement could have been achieved by incremental improvements, particularly to the ECML, at far, far lower costs. The limited number of displaceable flights within England, aka the limited demand for very high speed travel, was kind of my point! Again, to be clear, this is not anti rail. Loads of great rail projects have gone unfunded.

 

[Noddy]

If the rationale for very high speed was to displace flights to/from Scotland then it should have been seen as unaffordable from the outset. And some displacement could have been achieved by incremental improvements, particularly to the ECML, at far, far lower costs. The limited number of displaceable flights within England, aka the limited demand for very high speed travel, was kind of my point! Again, to be clear, this is not anti rail. Loads of great rail projects have gone unfunded.

This is complete nonsense. A single project can have more than one aim and can achieve multiple objectives.

The ‘rationale’ of the French when they built LGV Sud-East in the early 1980s was not to reach a point where they could ban Paris-Lyon flights in 2023.

 

[Krokodil]

Loads of great rail projects have gone unfunded.

Care to give some examples?

 

[MatthewHutton]

well below the magic 4hr market

London-Edinburgh is 4 hours now, and London Glasgow could be 4 hours with HS2 phase 1 - probably even if HS2 phase 1 had a top speed of 125mph. The main issue is capacity to run 2tph north of Crewe on the west coast mainline - and then freight service north of Crewe which HS2 won’t address.

And these days Paris-Nice and Paris-Barcelona have respectable rail shares and take 6 hours or more.

The only country where 4 hours is still some kind of barrier is Japan, but there Fukuoka and Haneda airports are very close to the city centre - and they have very good baggage transfer services for luggage (Yamato transit) and you can board a flight very close to the departure and the train fares for long trips are very uncompetitive because they are only priced on distance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

Care to give some examples?

Everything else that isn’t HS2 that hasn’t been done? There’s a lot.

 

[Noddy]

London-Edinburgh is 4 hours now, and London Glasgow could be 4 hours with HS2 phase 1 - probably even if HS2 phase 1 had a top speed of 125mph. The main issue is capacity to run 2tph north of Crewe on the west coast mainline - and then freight service north of Crewe which HS2 won’t address.

You are right that Edinburgh is about 4 hours and rail has about 50% of the Edinburgh/London (train/plane) share. Hence why 4 hours is the so called ‘magic number’. As you dip under (as only HS2 can take it) the share will fall dramatically. And because of the much long journey times rail’s share of Glasgow-London and Birmingham-Edinburgh+Glasgow markets is much smaller than the plane (and car).

 

[MatthewHutton]

You are right that Edinburgh is about 4 hours and rail has about 50% of the Edinburgh/London (train/plane) share. Hence why 4 hours is the so called ‘magic number’. As you dip under (as only HS2 can take it) the share will fall dramatically. And because of the much long journey times rail’s share of Glasgow-London and Birmingham-Edinburgh+Glasgow markets is much smaller than the plane (and car).

Don’t forget it’s more like 5-6 hours on the train to Edinburgh from places west of London.

 

[Noddy]

Don’t forget it’s more like 5-6 hours on the train to Edinburgh from places west of London.

OOC is 10 min quicker to/from Scotland than Euston and has better access to places west of London via public transport than Heathrow.

 

[slowroad]

This is complete nonsense. A single project can have more than one aim and can achieve multiple objectives.

The ‘rationale’ of the French when they built LGV Sud-East in the early 1980s was not to reach a point where they could ban Paris-Lyon flights in 2023.

Thats why you need to clear in mind the different geographies, as I mentioned above. England is already compact, so the French rationale will not apply.

 

[Noddy]

Thats why you need to clear in mind the different geographies, as I mentioned above. England is already compact, so the French rationale will not apply.

We’re not and haven’t over the few pages been talking about England though. I and other posters have been completely clear (to quote you) we are talking about the UK. That includes Scotland.

 

[slowroad]

Care to give some examples?

Views will vary of course. I’d go first for a package of smaller scale capacity enhancements - longer trains, particularly Cross Country and some Northern routes, with associated platform extensions. Then more extensive and expensive some work at pinch points - maybe Watford, Coventry-Birmingham, expand Moor Street and enhance the London service (and perhaps add a northbound link) to take pressure off New Street. But there will be lots of other, perhaps better ideas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

We’re not and haven’t over the few pages been talking about England though. I and other posters have been completely clear (to quote you) we are talking about the UK. That includes Scotland.

Sure, but the whole point is that the benefits to Scottish trips are small in the context of overall costs - you need a case that is strong in other respects. And it isn’t there.

 

[MatthewHutton]

OOC is 10 min quicker to/from Scotland than Euston and has better access to places west of London via public transport than Heathrow.

OOC will help a fair bit it’s true. But the great western mainline isn’t the only line west of London.

It also won’t help on cost grounds as passengers will have to be charged the full London fare.

Also the numbers may be small but e.g Reading-Edinburgh or Peterborough-Edinburgh would count as flying “from London” by air but not by train - so the 57% market share is an underestimate.

 

[Noddy]

Then more extensive and expensive some work at pinch points - maybe Watford, Coventry-Birmingham, expand Moor Street and enhance the London service (and perhaps add a northbound link) to take pressure off New Street. But there will be lots of other, perhaps better ideas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

My better idea would be to learn the lessons of WCML upgrade and build a bypass railway in order to avoid having years of disruption for existing users and spending billions up billions of pounds (15 at today’s prices) while failing to achieve long term capacity benefits. Perhaps I shall call my idea High Speed 2?

 

[Krokodil]

Everything else that isn’t HS2 that hasn’t been done? There’s a lot.

Everything? Literally everything? Wow. So you're prioritising every last "reverse Beeching" idea (plus the "reopen Woodhead/Waverley/Great Central/S&D" enthusiast hobbyhorses) over a strategic project that benefits a massive chunk of the British population? OK...

Views will vary of course. I’d go first for a package of smaller scale capacity enhancements - longer trains, particularly Cross Country and some Northern routes, with associated platform extensions. Then more extensive and expensive some work at pinch points - maybe Watford, Coventry-Birmingham, expand Moor Street and enhance the London service (and perhaps add a northbound link) to take pressure off New Street. But there will be lots of other, perhaps better ideas.

The WCML is full. A bit of tinkering around the edges is not going to solve that.

 

[The Planner]

Everything else that isn’t HS2 that hasn’t been done? There’s a lot.

Is there conclusive proof that HS2 is stopping anything else happening? Midlands Rail Hub, TRU, Manchester Oxford Road etc

Views will vary of course. I’d go first for a package of smaller scale capacity enhancements - longer trains, particularly Cross Country and some Northern routes, with associated platform extensions. Then more extensive and expensive some work at pinch points - maybe Watford, Coventry-Birmingham, expand Moor Street and enhance the London service (and perhaps add a northbound link) to take pressure off New Street. But there will be lots of other, perhaps better ideas.

Watford isn't a pinch point. Coventry Birmingham is released capacity by HS2, Moor St is Midlands Rail Hub and funded.

 

[Noddy]

OOC will help a fair bit it’s true. But the great western mainline isn’t the only line west of London.

It also won’t help on cost grounds as passengers will have to be charged the full London fare.

Also the numbers may be small but e.g Reading-Edinburgh or Peterborough-Edinburgh would count as flying “from London” by air but not by train - so the 57% market share is an underestimate.

Pricing is certainly an issue. Japan and France both offer cheaper fares via their classic stopping services and in the context of flying still managed to reduce the numbers (with or without the 2023 law in France which only really applies to a small handful of routes).

In terms of the market share I honestly don’t know how the share is calculated, in either this country or France for comparison. I would hope there is some sort of weighting to avoid the issue you describe. I’d be interested to see your source for 57% market share as it’s not one I’ve seen (I have seen higher figures banded about but they tend to be for summer months/Quarter when there are less business travellers and more tourists). What do they say for Birmingham and Glasgow?

 

[MatthewHutton]

I’d be interested to see your source for 57% market share as it’s not one I’ve seen (I have seen higher figures banded about but they tend to be for summer months/Quarter when there are less business travellers and more tourists).

Rail beating Air for market share Edinburgh-London

Seen this on STV News - https://news.stv.tv/east-central/rail-preferred-over-air-for-passengers-travelling-between-edinburgh-and-london-for-first-time More passengers choosing rail over air between Edinburgh and London More than half of journeys between Edinburgh and London were by rail...

www.railforums.co.uk

Presumably comes from https://www.firstgroupplc.com/news-and-media/latest-news/2022/24102022.aspx

What do they say for Birmingham and Glasgow?

Lumo don’t run that route so haven’t done a press release!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

Japan and France both offer cheaper fares via their classic stopping services and in the context of flying still managed to reduce the numbers

Here’s the Japan figures - https://www.westjr.co.jp/global/en/ir/library/fact-sheets/2025/pdf/fact07.pdf

https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/ir/factsheets/_pdf/factsheets2025-02-01.pdf

 

[slowroad]

Everything? Literally everything? Wow. So you're prioritising every last "reverse Beeching" idea (plus the "reopen Woodhead/Waverley/Great Central/S&D" enthusiast hobbyhorses) over a strategic project that benefits a massive chunk of the British population? OK...


The WCML is full. A bit of tinkering around the edges is not going to solve that.

I not ruling out new construction in due course. The discussion about alternative s to 2A shows a number of much lower cost alternatives.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

Is there conclusive proof that HS2 is stopping anything else happening? Midlands Rail Hub, TRU, Manchester Oxford Road etc

Watford isn't a pinch point. Coventry Birmingham is released capacity by HS2, Moor St is Midlands Rail Hub and funded.

Point is, we could have had all these, and others, and be getting the benefits by now. (I had in mind something more ambitious at Moor Street.)

 

[Noddy]

Rail beating Air for market share Edinburgh-London

Seen this on STV News - https://news.stv.tv/east-central/rail-preferred-over-air-for-passengers-travelling-between-edinburgh-and-london-for-first-time More passengers choosing rail over air between Edinburgh and London More than half of journeys between Edinburgh and London were by rail...

www.railforums.co.uk

Presumably comes from https://www.firstgroupplc.com/news-and-media/latest-news/2022/24102022.aspx


Lumo don’t run that route so haven’t done a press release!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==


Here’s the Japan figures - https://www.westjr.co.jp/global/en/ir/library/fact-sheets/2025/pdf/fact07.pdf

https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/ir/factsheets/_pdf/factsheets2025-02-01.pdf

Thanks. I would be interested to see more recent annual figures, because those are a) for the summer months only (April-August so selective) and b) still in the 2022 late pandemic era-businesses have been encouraging a return to face to face work/meeting over the last four years. The pre-pandemic figure in the press release says the figure was 35% before 2020 and I don’t think Lumo can have claimed 20% of the market!!

 

[MatthewHutton]

Thanks. I would be interested to see more recent annual figures, because those are a) for the summer months only (April-August so selective) and b) still in the 2022 late pandemic era-businesses have been encouraging a return to face to face work/meeting over the last four years. The pre-pandemic figure in the press release says the figure was 35% before 2020 and I don’t think Lumo can have claimed 20% of the market!!

https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/11911/0af1d44e-1648-4fd7-94e3-0b9697934148/17027 is the most recent annual figures for air. I count roughly 3m trips to Edinburgh from the London airports in 2024.

Probably vs roughly 2.5m by train in 2024/25 from London-Edinburgh Waverley including a reasonable share (half) of the Scotland-South East/East Traffic.

Would give rail a roughly 45% share to London and surrounds.