The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,631
So you have moved the goalposts and assumed this all works outside that geographical area. You can't arrive at a terminus on a ½ minute.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Restarting HS2a
- Thread starter Elecman
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Edinburgh will also be on the HS2/WCML route. Also increased freight to Liverpool's port. Liverpool's port plus passengers to Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the Lancs towns is the glaringly important rail corridor.
If a Bypass is to be built then build it not half of it. There is also the safety aspect of bypassing the consecutive bottlenecks. There has been fatalities.
Last edited:
MatthewHutton
Member
The time to Edinburgh with the Goulbourne link was like 3h49. Given that’s never going to happen and cutting that adds on 10 minutes it’s difficult to see the value of even trying when you can use the classic line as it stands to do 4h05 or whatever.
Sorting out Morpeth and building a high speed bypass from Darlington to Durham along the A1(M) alone would speed up the east coast line to match what you could realistically do with the west.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
The train simply wouldn't accelerate back to 400kph, if such speeds are ever achieved.
Southbound, the train would accelerate from 0 to 300kph, then run at 300kph until south of Hixon and then accelerate to 400kph.
Northbound, the train would decelerate from 400kph to 300kph, then stay at 300kph until the time comes to decelerate to a stop.
The time lost is the marginal time from covering the distance remaining at 300kph, not 400kph. Acceleration performance doesn't figure into it, as long as you assume the train could reach 400kph southbound before reaching Hixon absent speed restriction.
Given it is exceptionally unlikely that such speeds will ever be achieved, the actual real time lost is almost nothing.
Otherwise I agree with the posters above that going to Hixon solves the bulk of the near term problems that HS2 Phase 2a purports to solve at much lower cost
Until the ECML all along its route is made to be 140mph, it is viewed that the Edinburgh trains will take HS2/WCML as an interim. There is also the advantage of having all major cities, bar Leeds at two London stations.
Last edited:
MatthewHutton
Member
If you extended HS2 from Handsacre to at least Hixon that would address your concerns.
Last edited:
Is the HS2 Phase 2a highly useful section Handsacre-Hixon still safeguarded? Extending the track to Hixon can be at a lower loading gauge level than HS2 to reduce costs.
MatthewHutton
Member
I might be wrong but believe the government still owns the land to Crewe?
Snow1964
Established Member
Government owns over 550 parcels of land and properties, on both Manchester and Leeds routes.
Last published info was last summer when Government indicated it was planning to sell off surplus land during 2026. Since then Hansard answers to questions suggests hasn't actually happened yet, other comments acknowledge the capacity problems on both WCML and ECML so possibly having second thoughts and holding off for now. (Don't actually know what is happening, or if and when sell off might actually start). I suspect Government have a Heads Up on how not to do things from progress on the HS2 reset and possibly selling off what might need later has spooked them.
Did a search. The gvmt still owns much of the land for HS2 route to Crewe. Safeguarding has been removed. If powers expire with no extension, the government can’t legally buy more land for the route unless new legislation is passed. Land very close to Handsacre Junction remains safeguarded so the Phase 1 connection to the WCML can be built. The section north toward Crewe (e.g., Handsacre to Hoxon) is not currently safeguarded and there’s no official plan announced to retain it for HS2. Safeguarding along Phase 2a was removed for most of the route.
Senseless as the Handsacre to Hoxon is the most useful section.
Senseless as the Handsacre to Hoxon is the most useful section.
It does, I currently rent off HS2 adjacent to WCML south of Crewe
MatthewHutton
Member
Agreed.
But also I think it’s politically hard to do anything else given how much the costs blew up.
It uses roughly one third of the HS2 Phase 2a high speed alignment from Streethay Junction to a point near Moreton Farm. From this point an additional 5km of high speed alignment is built to join the WCML Stone line via a flat junction near the site of the former level crossing at Hixon, approximately 15km from Streethay Junction. This option requires the construction of three junctions at Hixon, Sandon and Norton Bridge.
MatthewHutton
Member
Don’t agree with the flat junctions or the 400km/h top speed beyond Handsacre but it’s an interesting proposal.
The time saving from 300 to 400 is going to be really really small, especially as it will be accelerating from 225 along much of it.
Do not forget LGV Sud Est cost like £5-6m/km in todays money, but they still did grade separated junctions.
Last edited:
This proposal can be further enhanced by eliminating two junctions entirely. The HS2 extension from Streethey should connect directly to the Colwich–Stone line at Hixon, removing the need for the Handsacre/WCML junction. From Hixon southwards to Colwich, the existing line would become redundant and could be lifted. In the longer term, this would also allow the WCML junction at Colwich to be significantly simplified, reducing conflict and maintenance complexity.
HS2 services would therefore not branch into the WCML at Handsacre at all, avoiding the operational penalties and capacity constraints inherent in mixing high-speed and classic traffic. As there are no intermediate stations on the Colwich–Stone line, local services would not be disadvantaged and could continue to reach Stone via Stafford, as they already do.
This arrangement would leave only two remaining junctions in the area: one south of Stone and one on the WCML north of Stafford. Both could be grade-separated, improving capacity and resilience, and delivering a clear safety benefit by removing flat junction conflicts.
Any future extension — for example Handsacre or Streethey to Hixon — would almost certainly be delivered by Network Rail, not HS2 Ltd, and quietly rebadged as a conventional capacity or resilience scheme. The “HS2” label has become politically toxic, even where the underlying engineering logic remains sound.
To put a billion into perspective:
If Jesus Christ, from the age of 26, had saved £500,000 every single year, without fail, he would only be reaching £1 billion this year. That is what we are now spending per mile.
HS2 services would therefore not branch into the WCML at Handsacre at all, avoiding the operational penalties and capacity constraints inherent in mixing high-speed and classic traffic. As there are no intermediate stations on the Colwich–Stone line, local services would not be disadvantaged and could continue to reach Stone via Stafford, as they already do.
This arrangement would leave only two remaining junctions in the area: one south of Stone and one on the WCML north of Stafford. Both could be grade-separated, improving capacity and resilience, and delivering a clear safety benefit by removing flat junction conflicts.
The projected cost of HS2 has reached around £1 billion per mile, a figure so extreme that it stretches credibility. It is genuinely surprising that the scheme was not cancelled outright, with the exception of the Old Oak Common–Aylesbury section, allowing fast services to run onto the Chiltern Main Line. That alone would have delivered a fast Birmingham and West Midlands service while keeping this long-distance traffic off the WCML, and would also have provided substantial new commuter capacity into London.
Any future extension — for example Handsacre or Streethey to Hixon — would almost certainly be delivered by Network Rail, not HS2 Ltd, and quietly rebadged as a conventional capacity or resilience scheme. The “HS2” label has become politically toxic, even where the underlying engineering logic remains sound.
To put a billion into perspective:
If Jesus Christ, from the age of 26, had saved £500,000 every single year, without fail, he would only be reaching £1 billion this year. That is what we are now spending per mile.
Last edited:
It’s not costing a billion pounds a mile though is it. Even if it does cost £100 billion for HS2 phase 1 that’s £700 million per mile.
To put this in context the Lower Thames Crossing is estimated to to cost £10-11 billion to build 14 miles of A-road (not even motorway grade road). Which at the (lower) estimate is…dramatic pause… is £700 million per mile.
That is the reality of new build infrastructure costs in this country. Those folk who claim if they downgrade the spec from 400kmh to 250kmh or change the horizontal alignment are completely missing the point on costs. It’s not the so called ‘gold plating’ of projects that causes costs, it’s that fact that infrastructure is very expensive to build in this country regardless of whether it is a railway or a road.
Last edited:
MatthewHutton
Member
The problem with phase 2a is that the sorts of figures I have seen have it costing £500m a mile when our peers are building similar projects for £20m.
Did you read my post?
MatthewHutton
Member
Undoubtedly that is also overpriced, but it is a road crossing of a river so is going to be pretty expensive given ventilation and the big tunnel. It’s not really comparable to a railway on the surface.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The thing is we used to be able to build infrastructure for sensible costs, so we can again in the future.
Evergreen 3 wasn’t awful frankly. £250m for 10 miles of completely rebuilt track and quite a lot of existing line upgraded to 100mph. The Jubilee line extension wasn’t bad either, nor was High Speed one given the London tunnelling. Further back there are plenty of other examples.
HS2 Phase 1: 22% is in tunnels (32 miles)
LTC: 18% is in tunnel (2.4 miles).
It is totally comparable. It is what it costs today to build major new build infrastructure projects in this country.
HS2 Phase 2a is mostly on the surface which is why some claim it would be a bit cheaper.
Incidentally, the Jubilee line extension you mention cost £830 million per mile in 2025 prices.
Last edited:
Snow1964
Established Member
The stupidly high figure seems to be from not just building a railway, but in many cases altering the landscape for 50-100m each side too.
Staffordshire is not mountainous, it should not require anywhere near the amount of earthworks, viaducts, tunnels etc, that were agreed for southern section.
Huge amounts of earthmoving equipment will soon be surplus (from HS2 phase 1) anyway. And no one with any sense is going to issue contracts in the unlimited cost plus form again.
MatthewHutton
Member
So it was £3.5bn for 16km which works out at £720m/mile adjusted for inflation from 1995 including 11 stations, four crossings of the Thames, crossing three tube lines, going under parliament and being mostly underground throughout.
Also there was the pause due to the Heathrow collapse and the corruption that went to trial.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is the 400km/h design speed in action and why I say following the LGV Sud Est spec is sufficient. That basically follows the landscape.
Last edited:
£3.5 in 1999 is £8.3 in 2025 prices (ONS RPI all items) at 10.0 miles equals 830 million per mile. HS2 has some fairly big ticket items too including Euston, London tunnels, Old Oak Common, Curzon Street, the Delta Junction, crossing an AONB, etc etc. Some have suggested on here that putting the whole thing in a tunnel would make it cheaper.
Is it? Or is that the absurd level of noise mitigation etc. demanded by the NIMBYs as the price for running it through their areas?
daodao
Established Member
Other than the Trent Valley south of Stone, Staffordshire is actually quite hilly.
MatthewHutton
Member
They have very high noise standards in Japan and yet costs are much more sensible even though there is a lot of tunnelling and everything has to be earthquake proof.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Rural France isn’t that flat. And certainly the terrain in Japan/Taiwan is much more challenging.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
All of these are in phase 1. We are talking about phase 2a.
I don’t dispute that phase 1 was going to cost more than a project in rural France.
Last edited:
I was responding to the point that HS2 was going to cost £1 billion per mile. I’m not comparing the cost of the railway to building one in France four decades ago. It’s a completely pointless comparison.
I’m comparing the cost to building other major new build infrastructure in this country at the present time. You keep claiming that reducing the spec from 400kmh to 300kmh will somehow massively reduce costs but you have presented zero evidence for this. A comparable project in this country (LTC) is likely to cost even more per mile than HS2, and that project certainly isn’t ‘gold plated’- it isn’t even being built as a motorway but rather an All Purpose Trunk Road. HS2 is bargain compared to that.
Snow1964
Established Member
To give some perspective regarding construction costs.
The Adare bypass (county Limerick) phase 1 is 7km of motorway (to be completed before next years Ryder cup) is €150m (£130m), the whole scheme with dual carriageway extension, and link roads is €700m (£608m) for 30km (18.64 miles) so £32m per mile.
How many times do I have to say comparing costs to other major new build infrastructure cost in THIS country! As soon as you look abroad the context starts to get very different, very quickly.
MatthewHutton
Member
In Britain in the 1980s costs were the same as our peers, in the 1990s, 2000s and early 2010s they were up to double our peers.
Its only really since then they have got completely ridiculous.
- Status