Restarting HS2a

[HSTEd]

That seems unnecessarily oppositional to the experts. Deviations from the original plan aren’t being made based on new information, but by political choices on spending money less efficiently. Fine, that’s politics, but I don’t know why people here defend it.

Even if we blame all of HS2s manifold failings on politicians, and I think that stretches credulity, there is a pile of new information.

The existence of NPR and the non existence of the HS2 eastern branch would seem to fundamentally change the operational environment for railways in the North of England.
Even if no direct trains run, the fastest route to Leeds will be changing at Manchester. The fastest route to Liverpool will be via Manchester etc etc etc.

If that holds, I think the value of Crewe hub is radically diminished because Manchester (EDIT: Or Manchester Airport) will be able to do pretty much everything it can do, but better (more connections to more places)

 

[Verulamius]

The Department for Transport accounting officer decision for the route of the proposed Manchester Liverpool line has been published.

Northern Powerhouse Rail: Millington to Manchester alignment for the route between Liverpool and Manchester - accounting officer assessment summary (January 2026)

www.gov.uk

The route via Millington (west of the airport) has been chosen because it enables "HS2" from London and Birmingham.

The government has selected the Millington route as its preferred route between Manchester and Liverpool. Based on the information available today there are potentially other routes available between Manchester and Liverpool that would deliver better value for money if connectivity between those two cities is considered in isolation, although these routes would not be aligned with local growth plans (including a strong desire to put the airport at the heart of plans) and so may not deliver the same transformational benefits.


The government has been clear, however, one of the values of the Liverpool-Manchester line via Millington is to support the ultimate delivery of a future new line south from Manchester to Birmingham that is also capable of supporting capacity and connectivity (in terms of journey time, reliability, frequency, train paths and number of seats) to the wider North West and Scotland. The government has assessed that, on the basis of ongoing investment to deliver a more balanced and productive economy, ultimately the country will require the additional capacity and connectivity of a full new line. Long term projections of demand for rail services are always highly uncertain and this is exacerbated both by COVID-19 and the well-documented challenges around reliable West Coast Main Line services. Both will have suppressed demand to an extent and make it particularly difficult to assess the long-term growth trajectory.


While there is uncertainty about demand at this stage, the government’s clear strategic objective is to ultimately build such a new line connecting Manchester and Birmingham and that the line from Liverpool to Manchester should represent the first increment of this north-south work. The only option that will deliver this objective is the route via Millington, and therefore it represents the best value for money approach to deliver the government’s objectives. Construction of remaining elements will follow completion of the Northern Powerhouse programme and it will be essential to learn lessons from HS2 and ensure specification is carefully considered

 

[Topological]

There is a very relevant point in that announcement:

In isolation, the value for money of the transport initiatives will be much more limited and the relative value for money of the different options will vary.

Another huge advantage of the proposed route is that it makes Liverpool closer to Manchester Airport and the associated global connectivity. Liverpool will be able to generate far greater inward investment by leveraging its own strengths in conjunction with the global connectivity.

The routing of NPR via Manchester Airport means a large chunk of HS2 is there. The issue is which project gets the cost for its costings.

 

[Energy]

Another huge advantage of the proposed route is that it makes Liverpool closer to Manchester Airport and the associated global connectivity. Liverpool will be able to generate far greater inward investment by leveraging its own strengths in conjunction with the global connectivity.

It will be interesting to see how Liverpool John Lennon Airport will be affected.

 

[Topological]

It will be interesting to see how Liverpool John Lennon Airport will be affected.

My feeling is that a lot will depend on how Liverpool John Lennon is connected into the new line. Assuming there is a "parkway" station on the edge of Liverpool then maybe you would see more people from Manchester finding Liverpool John Lennon as accessible.

Manchester Airport does have constraints on capacity and tends to focus less on budget flights.

Since I do not believe anyone thinks the long distance wide bodies will be serving Liverpool John Lennon any time soon, the ability to get off said flights and be in Liverpool in half an hour will be a big change.

 

[zwk500]

My feeling is that a lot will depend on how Liverpool John Lennon is connected into the new line. Assuming there is a "parkway" station on the edge of Liverpool then maybe you would see more people from Manchester finding Liverpool John Lennon as accessible.

Manchester Airport does have constraints on capacity and tends to focus less on budget flights.

Since I do not believe anyone thinks the long distance wide bodies will be serving Liverpool John Lennon any time soon, the ability to get off said flights and be in Liverpool in half an hour will be a big change.

Could be mutually beneficial to both airports, allowing Liverpool to take on the lower cost role and Manchester the long-haul widebodies for the northwest. A bit like Luton and Heathrow.

 

[Topological]

Could be mutually beneficial to both airports, allowing Liverpool to take on the lower cost role and Manchester the long-haul widebodies for the northwest. A bit like Luton and Heathrow.

Yes. I assume that is another motivation for the line.

(If like with most planners, it is accepted that having greater international connectivity is a good thing. Certainly Manchesters connectivity is good for us at the University)

 

[AndrewE]

If that holds, I think the value of Crewe hub is radically diminished because Manchester (EDIT: Or Manchester Airport) will be able to do pretty much everything it can do, but better (more connections to more places)

... apart from provide a fast through route to Lancashire, Cumbria and Scotland. More London-centric thinking there, I am afraid.

 

[Topological]

... apart from provide a fast through route to Lancashire, Cumbria and Scotland. More London-centric thinking there, I am afraid.

Joining the WCML has a strong purpose. I think we would assume that the line will. I expect it to route through Crewe as HS2 was going to.

I just do not see that the full Crewe Hub development is necessary. If you set it up so HS2 trains stop at Platforms 5 and 6, run the WCML classic to 11 and 12, then the only thing you are doing is chopping off the TfW Cardiff to Manchester, but that could route via Warrington if it was really felt that you needed a direct train. In more likelihood people would just change at Crewe for one of the HS trains to Manchester.

(Note I write about a cheaper Crewe that does not permit crossing from Shrewsbury to Manchester as a regular user of services that do cross at Crewe)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I do not know if this means they will renew all the 2a safeguarding that is due to expire in February 2026.

The Act only allows them to extend the powers once, for a maximum of five years.

It is logical, then, to wait until the last possible date before expiry to implement an extension of the powers.


Edited for typo.

 

[HSTEd]

... apart from provide a fast through route to Lancashire, Cumbria and Scotland. More London-centric thinking there, I am afraid.

I think NPR is highly likely to provide a connection to the WCML near Warrington. Doing so allows it to relieve the Castlefield mess.

Even if does not do so as a matter course, one could be provided with a tunnel of comparable length to the tunnel planned at Crewe in the baseline scheme.

So the route via Manchester airport would still be faster as trains can stay at high speed for longer.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think NPR is highly likely to provide a connection to the WCML near Warrington. Doing so allows it to relieve the Castlefield mess.

Even if does not do so as a matter course, one could be provided with a tunnel of comparable length to the tunnel planned at Crewe in the baseline scheme.

So the route via Manchester airport would still be faster as trains can stay at high speed for longer.

This is my hope. That is connecting as efficiently as possible to NPR (Liverpool to Manchester) and then a link Northwards onto the WCM from NPR. Ideally allowing HS2 trains to call at Manchester (Airport and/or Piccadilly) before going on to Warrington and Northwards (as well as Liverpool and Leeds).

---

It occurs to me that if HS2a (and b) is not going to happen until after NPR Yorkshire and NPR Cheshire then we need to start worrying about :-
How will the WCML work when HS2 reaches Handsacre and no further ?.
So I will start a new thread here.

 

[NCT]

The Department for Transport accounting officer decision for the route of the proposed Manchester Liverpool line has been published.

Northern Powerhouse Rail: Millington to Manchester alignment for the route between Liverpool and Manchester - accounting officer assessment summary (January 2026)

www.gov.uk

The route via Millington (west of the airport) has been chosen because it enables "HS2" from London and Birmingham.

This is most illuminating.

I believe this is the first time I've seen the BCR figure for NPR published. 0.4 for an early stage BCR is pretty dire - at similar stage of development HS2's was around 2.

The bit about Millington enabling eventual HS2-but-don't-call-it-HS2 to Birmingham is interesting. I don't know why it is, but it's almost as though we have to pretend to be building NPR when what really want to do is to just get on with HS2.

 

[Krokodil]

I believe this is the first time I've seen the BCR figure for NPR published. 0.4 for an early stage BCR is pretty dire

Is that a "Building Liverpool to Manchester independently BCR", or a "HS2 is building the tunnel anyway, this BCR covers the Airport to Liverpool section construction costs with the benefits of the total route from Liverpool to Manchester"? Would be an interesting comparison.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Of course, 400kph, even assuming magical instantaneous acceleration, would save a grand total of 160 seconds over a 360kph alignment over the 160km or so between London and Birmingham.
Even compared to 320kph it saves only six minutes.

I am assuming that the HS2 operating speed will in the end be limited to 250kph as I have no confidence that this country will be able to provide enough electric power for the trains to run any faster than 250kph.

 

[Nottingham59]

I am assuming that the HS2 operating speed will in the end be limited to 250kph as I have no confidence that this country will be able to provide enough electric power for the trains to run any faster than 250kph.

Of course it will. The entire GB rail network - that's all 25kV AC and 750V DC combined - consumes an average of just 400MW. The extra load from HS2 will be just a tiny fraction of that.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/q34mblpr/rail-environment-2023-24.pdf

Traction energy Energy consumption In the latest year (April 2023 to March 2024), total traction electricity consumption for passenger trains was 3,848 million kilowatt hours.

3,848 million kWh/y is roughly 10 million kWh/d. So an average of 400 thousand kW over the whole day. If you assume a 10h working day, that's 1000MW peak.

 

[JamesT]

I am assuming that the HS2 operating speed will in the end be limited to 250kph as I have no confidence that this country will be able to provide enough electric power for the trains to run any faster than 250kph.

This is a joke right? Or are you not aware there are already trains running at 300kph in this country?

 

[weeklycommuter]

This is a joke right? Or are you not aware there are already trains running at 300kph in this country?

Two Eurostar trains an hour each way on a shorter line. The Southeastern High Speed trains run at 225kph.

 

[zwk500]

Two Eurostar trains an hour each way on a shorter line. The Southeastern High Speed trains run at 225kph.

They don't run above 225kph because they don't run on the high speed line for very long. It's not because there isn't enough electricity in the grid.

 

[weeklycommuter]

They don't run above 225kph because they don't run on the high speed line for very long. It's not because there isn't enough electricity in the grid.

I am sure that the calculations show that it should be possible to deliver enough electric power to HS2 for 10tph each way at least for 300kph.

I just have a general lack of confidence because this country needs to add a lot more electric power to the grid and in the right places, not just for HS2 but for everything. There will be millions of electric cars that need recharging all the time.

This means a lot of investment in new renewable and nuclear electric power generation, including to replace the use of gas to generate electricity, and in the grid that distributes the electric power to where it is needed and this all appears to be taking many years.

I note that at present Avanti have to run some of their Liverpool trains on diesel under the wires and Lumo cannot run 10-car trains because the electrified railway does not deliver enough power in many places. None of this gives me any confidence that when HS2 eventually opens there will not be 'temporary' limits on speed because this country at that point still cannot deliver enough power to the trains.

 

[The Planner]

I am sure that the calculations show that it should be possible to deliver enough electric power to HS2 for 10tph each way at least for 300kph.

I just have a general lack of confidence because this country needs to add a lot more electric power to the grid and in the right places, not just for HS2 but for everything. There will be millions of electric cars that need recharging all the time.

This means a lot of investment in new renewable and nuclear electric power generation, including to replace the use of gas to generate electricity, and in the grid that distributes the electric power to where it is needed and this all appears to be taking many years.

I note that at present Avanti have to run some of their Liverpool trains on diesel under the wires and Lumo cannot run 10-car trains because the electrified railway does not deliver enough power in many places. None of this gives me any confidence that when HS2 eventually opens there will not be 'temporary' limits on speed because this country at that point still cannot deliver enough power to the trains.

You will have at least two new/increased feeders by that time on the WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

They don't run above 225kph because they don't run on the high speed line for very long. It's not because there isn't enough electricity in the grid.

Whilst it doesn't really matter at the current low utilisation of HS2's 300kph section, I think any future HS1 stock would probably be specified for higher speeds. Especially if orderd in connection with some sort of route modernisation for higher capacity, especially at St Pancras.

Losing a minute matters a lot more on an intensively operated railway than it does on a half empty one.

But I power restrictions will be signfiicant on HS2, especially given it is not going to get near its design traffic for years, if ever.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I note that at present Avanti have to run some of their Liverpool trains on diesel under the wires

Do they? I work out of Lime St/Euston most days and I can't say I've noticed that. Obviously the Chester/N Wales units change to diesel at Crewe due to lack of wires but never seen it on the Liverpool route.

I have, however, been on trains that have had calls from Signallers regarding speed/acceleration due to pendos being routed around the back of Birmingham in disruption drawing too much power in certain sections.

 

[Elecman]

You will have at least two new/increased feeders by that time on the WCML.

Penwortham is one where is the other?

 

[zwk500]

I just have a general lack of confidence because this country needs to add a lot more electric power to the grid and in the right places, not just for HS2 but for everything. There will be millions of electric cars that need recharging all the time.

This means a lot of investment in new renewable and nuclear electric power generation, including to replace the use of gas to generate electricity, and in the grid that distributes the electric power to where it is needed and this all appears to be taking many years.

It is a valid concern, but there is a rather big nuclear power plant in Somerset being built, numerous wind projects as well. It remains to be seen how SMR Nuclear will work in reality, and there are several barriers to expansion that need to be handled with.

But the shortage of electricity isn't going to be so critical that trains will have restricted top speeds. The more likely response would be to restrict the amount of trains using the wires.

I note that at present Avanti have to run some of their Liverpool trains on diesel under the wires and Lumo cannot run 10-car trains because the electrified railway does not deliver enough power in many places. None of this gives me any confidence that when HS2 eventually opens there will not be 'temporary' limits on speed because this country at that point still cannot deliver enough power to the trains.

AIUI these restrictions are more about getting power from the grid to the railway due to changes in service from the design spec, not because of a general lack of electricity being produced.

Whilst it doesn't really matter at the current low utilisation of HS2's 300kph section, I think any future HS1 stock would probably be specified for higher speeds. Especially if orderd in connection with some sort of route modernisation for higher capacity, especially at St Pancras.

Losing a minute matters a lot more on an intensively operated railway than it does on a half empty one.

Considering HS1 is 230 from St Pancras to Ebbsfleet, and therefore the only 300kph running for SE is from Ebbsfleet to Ashford which is a tiny proportion of their route mileage, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't specified for higher speed tbh. Acceleration is more important for the 'Javelin' stock than breaching 140mph. Especially when they're working in between the classic services.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I am sure that the calculations show that it should be possible to deliver enough electric power to HS2 for 10tph each way at least for 300kph.

I just have a general lack of confidence because this country needs to add a lot more electric power to the grid and in the right places, not just for HS2 but for everything. There will be millions of electric cars that need recharging all the time.

This means a lot of investment in new renewable and nuclear electric power generation, including to replace the use of gas to generate electricity, and in the grid that distributes the electric power to where it is needed and this all appears to be taking many years.

I note that at present Avanti have to run some of their Liverpool trains on diesel under the wires and Lumo cannot run 10-car trains because the electrified railway does not deliver enough power in many places. None of this gives me any confidence that when HS2 eventually opens there will not be 'temporary' limits on speed because this country at that point still cannot deliver enough power to the trains.

You are confusing a lack of capacity in the substations along a section of line electrified many decades so (so out of date) with the generating capacity of the whole nation.

 

[The Planner]

Penwortham is one where is the other?

Bushey/Acton Lane

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==

Do they? I work out of Lime St/Euston most days and I can't say I've noticed that. Obviously the Chester/N Wales units change to diesel at Crewe due to lack of wires but never seen it on the Liverpool route.

I have, however, been on trains that have had calls from Signallers regarding speed/acceleration due to pendos being routed around the back of Birmingham in disruption drawing too much power in certain sections.

Yes. Willenhall struggles apparently.

 

[Shrop]

Of course, 400kph, even assuming magical instantaneous acceleration, would save a grand total of 160 seconds over a 360kph alignment over the 160km or so between London and Birmingham.
Even compared to 320kph it saves only six minutes.

These marginal savings between London and Birmingham are exactly why HS2 needed to run to at least Manchester/Leeds, in order to save a great deal more time. If only the Tories had been told before they stopped it

 

[slowroad]

These marginal savings between London and Birmingham are exactly why HS2 needed to run to at least Manchester/Leeds, in order to save a great deal more time. If only the Tories had been told before they stopped it

But I thought the real case for HS2 was capacity? Or am I suffering from a deficiency in the humour detection department?

 

[Shrop]

But I thought the real case for HS2 was capacity? Or am I suffering from a deficiency in the humour detection department?

Yes, that was often given as the reason, but think about it.
It was fundamentally wrong to design HS2 as a scheme from London to Birmingham, with add-ons to Manchester and Leeds. The correct design should always have been London to Manchester/Leeds as all or nothing, because that is what the UK has always needed.
The route never needed to serve Birmingham as top priority, because serving Manchester (and thus Liverpool and Scotland) removes many trains from the London to Birmingham route and thus inherently improves capacity here.