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!
Would this be the same 19th century enterprise and innovation that cause the WCML to initially completely by-pass Northampton because of NIMBY objections? Or that resulted in Northampton - when it did finally get a railway - getting two separate stations forcing people changing trains to walk between them because LNWR and the Midland Railway wouldn't talk to each other? (Similar to the reasons why Birmingham ended up with New Street / Curzon Street / Snow Hill and Liverpool with Lime Street / Central / Exchange).
I'd be careful what you wish for when reminiscing about the good old days
Would this be the same 19th century enterprise and innovation that cause the WCML to initially completely by-pass Northampton because of NIMBY objections? Or that resulted in Northampton - when it did finally get a railway - getting two separate stations forcing people changing trains to walk between them because LNWR and the Midland Railway wouldn't talk to each other? (Similar to the reasons why Birmingham ended up with New Street / Curzon Street / Snow Hill and Liverpool with Lime Street / Central / Exchange).
I'd be careful what you wish for when reminiscing about the good old days
Interesting you say it was public opinion that caused WCML to avoid Northampton. Are you sure it wasn't the influence of the extremely powerful owners of the Althorpe Estate that caused the route to run to the west of their estate in preference to serving Northampton?
Reform have been campaigning with WTM_HS2 and the taxpayers alliance to cancel the whole thing. Tice wrote the foreword to Andrew Gilligan's nonsense policy exchange report that they would cancel all northern rail investment for a different idea and leave phase 1, by then civils finished, as a "monument to British incompetence".
To some extent, with the current polls showing a Reform win, I think thats been damanging to any revival of phase 2a.
The Phase 1 powers expired in February 2022 and given the timelines of Phase 1 and 2a I do wonder if they have all/the vast vast majority already purchased.
A quick google search indicates a written question to parliament (UIN HL8410, tabled on 12 June 2025) asking how much land had been compulsory purchased for Phase 1+2a was 54km, and the High Speed Rail Group are saying for Phase 2a figure is 11.7km. If the latter figure is correct comparing it with the route mileage does suggest most has already been purchased as the figure for both is about 20%.
Didn't Northampton not get a WCML station initially because the approach was way to steep, I recall a quote something to the likes of "I could get a train into Northampton but not out again".
Reform have been campaigning with WTM_HS2 and the taxpayers alliance to cancel the whole thing. Tice wrote the foreword to Andrew Gilligan's nonsense policy exchange report that they would cancel all northern rail investment for a different idea and leave phase 1, by then civils finished, as a "monument to British incompetence".
To some extent, with the current polls showing a Reform win, I think thats been damanging to any revival of phase 2a.
I think we should be careful not to confuse facts here. On the one hand, you could interpret the popularity of Reform with its anti rail stance, as a sign that people don't want HS2 revived, and to their discredit some people might believe this to be the case.
On the other hand though, it could be that there is little or no link at all, because so many people are disillusioned by the Two Party system with all of its constituent parts, that has existed in the UK for more than a century.
Millions of people just want change, irrespective of the effects on the railways, after all the vast majority of the country is car orientated, rather than rail orientated. Another sorry fact which I wish wasn't the case.
Interesting you say it was public opinion that caused WCML to avoid Northampton. Are you sure it wasn't the influence of the extremely powerful owners of the Althorpe Estate that caused the route to run to the west of their estate in preference to serving Northampton?
I think it was a few powerful people, but I didn't have time to double-check the details - hence why used the phrase 'NIMBY objections' without specifying who it was - so I didn't actually say 'public opinion'
I think we should be careful not to confuse facts here. On the one hand, you could interpret the popularity of Reform with its anti rail stance, as a sign that people don't want HS2 revived, and to their discredit some people might believe this to be the case.
On the other hand though, it could be that there is little or no link at all, because so many people are disillusioned by the Two Party system with all of its constituent parts, that has existed in the UK for more than a century.
Millions of people just want change, irrespective of the effects on the railways, after all the vast majority of the country is car orientated, rather than rail orientated. Another sorry fact which I wish wasn't the case.
Yes, I dont think many know their position on hs2 and their position in the polls is largely from, as you say, wanting change away from the two party system.
Theyre populists though, so its very much on the simplistic policy side. Cancel "high speed" projects which is currently associated with cost and delay and push for an "Elizabeth line for the north" since that is associated with success. People would vote for better rail services, but hs2 has been so badly understood that you can see why there might be more of an appeal to the latter. They won't know or wont say that changing plans will add more time, more cost and that the issue with hs2 wasnt really the project, but planning and construction issues in this country coupled with some poor delivery, which could happen, and is happening, elsewhere. A proper government would fix the underlying issues and crack on.
Yes, I dont think many know their position on hs2 and their position in the polls is largely from, as you say, wanting change away from the two party system.
Theyre populists though, so its very much on the simplistic policy side. Cancel "high speed" projects which is currently associated with cost and delay and push for an "Elizabeth line for the north" since that is associated with success. People would vote for better rail services, but hs2 has been so badly understood that you can see why there might be more of an appeal to the latter. They won't know or wont say that changing plans will add more time, more cost and that the issue with hs2 wasnt really the project, but planning and construction issues in this country coupled with some poor delivery, which could happen, and is happening, elsewhere. A proper government would fix the underlying issues and crack on.
I agree most voters will have little or no opinion on rail or public transport generally.
Voters will vote for change because they are desperate for something different. Reform is different. But Reform has quite clearly ruled out any more HS2, even abandoning phase 1. They will be more afraid of going back on that promise than of the consequences of leaving public transport high and dry.
What Reform might hopefully do is call out the ridiculously high costs of all such projects, not just rail but also road etc. We really do need to focus on why the UK is so hopelessly expensive for all sorts of engineering. But they will be mainly busy getting rid of things like - erm cheap labour. Which would be counter productive.
Rebuilding the Waverley route would not cut journey times at all. The winding route meant that the actual route was considerably more than what it looks like if you zoom right out and squint, and not much shorter than via Carstairs – but because it was such a sinuous alignment, most of it would only be suitable for low speeds, and so would be considerably slower than the current route.
Sure, if you had no concern for environmental damage and money was no object then you could carve a new faster alignment through the region, although getting past Hawick would be particularly destructive, but we aren't in that world.
Then when you reach the current Borders Railway you're sharing a line that's a mix of single and double track with a half-hourly stopping service calling at 9 stations along the way, so even if you can find a path on there you'll basically end up flighted with a stopper so again, slow.
Whatever merits there may be of building Carlisle to Galashiels (and they are pretty slim), they aren't going to be about providing a faster route to Edinburgh for intercity trains.
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 Phase 1 powers expired in February 2022 and given the timelines of Phase 1 and 2a I do wonder if they have all/the vast vast majority already purchased.
A quick google search indicates a written question to parliament (UIN HL8410, tabled on 12 June 2025) asking how much land had been compulsory purchased for Phase 1+2a was 54km, and the High Speed Rail Group are saying for Phase 2a figure is 11.7km. If the latter figure is correct comparing it with the route mileage does suggest most has already been purchased as the figure for both is about 20%.
Don't forget there are two ways to purchase land, by negotiation and compulsory.
It is much easier to do the first method, and compulsory purchase is a much slower, protracted and legally more expensive process, so is used more as a last resort.
What those figures do not show is how much land was acquired by simply buying it because the owners were happy to sell up at price offered. If a lot of the route is agricultural land (which is relatively cheap) there are going to be farm owners who will have been thinking we will make a few hundred pounds a year from each acre, or we can sell up for few thousand and have cash windfall. (I don't know the actual amounts and it will vary depending on quality of farmland), so some may have quietly sold up, and are renting it back cheaply until the land is needed.
Never seen any figures on how much of the trace is in HS2s ownership, only the number of land parcels (without saying how many parcels it hasn't got)
North of the border, rail infrastructure is devolved so its a matter for the Scottish govt, but there was an agreement to get times down under 3hrs to London.
The Scottish and UK governments reach an agreement with the long-term aim of delivering three-hour train journeys from London to Scottish cities.
www.bbc.co.uk
Scotland would have seen fast services between Southern England and Glasgow/Edinburgh every half hour, so a doubling of seats and frequency with a time saving.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What Reform might hopefully do is call out the ridiculously high costs of all such projects, not just rail but also road etc. We really do need to focus on why the UK is so hopelessly expensive for all sorts of engineering. But they will be mainly busy getting rid of things like - erm cheap labour. Which would be counter productive.
We absolutely do, but they wont. We already see them backing the anti pylon campaigns, despute promising cheaper electricity, thats the issue with populists. I suspect they would be incredibly nimby in power. The policies announced so far are mostly slop, a concentration on solutions that may be popular but formed through not understanding the causes and downsides.
We absolutely do, but they wont. We already see them backing the anti pylon campaigns, despute promising cheaper electricity, thats the issue with populists. I suspect they would be incredibly nimby in power. The policies announced so far are mostly slop, a concentration on solutions that may be popular but formed through not understanding the causes and downsides.
Those two points are not opposites, they align. Ministers should not continually change scope, thats the main point about changes, but also better planning reduces the need for changes later on. The big issue that Sir Jon was raising when initially talking about the bat tunnel was that they needed separate approvals for almost every structure. Local authorities often delayed approvals and some led to redesigns. That is fixable.
There were issues around contract procurement and risk transfer that were apparently fixed for phase 2a contracts.
There are issues with our construction industry as a whole that needs fixing, its expensive for everything here, not just hs2. Blaming hs2 specs is popular but its nowhere near the biggest issue. The way the industry is set up involves multiple layers of subcontracting which raises costs.
There are issues with energy costs, material costs (partly affected by energy) and a skills shortage increasing labour costs. We should be encouraging people into construction, but the volatile nature of government funding probably puts a lot off. Training up the current workforce and their initial inexperience has been expensive.
A long term plan, hopefully protected from the whims of dodgy journalists masquerading as advisers, that the supply chain could trust could go some way to helping reduce costs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Definitely. Unfortunately, even our most trusted media brands are not helping inform the public. Take for example the 15 minute city rubbish in the telegraph lately, whilst those complaining say the traffic is terrible and the buses arent on time...
Those two points are not opposites, they align. Ministers should not continually change scope, thats the main point about changes, but also better planning reduces the need for changes later on. The big issue that Sir Jon was raising when initially talking about the bat tunnel was that they...
Britain, especially England, is geographically compact. There is no good evidence that very high speed rail would deliver large benefits in aggregate, or that any benefits would accrue disproportionately to the desired locations (rather than encouraging further centralisation in London).
In effect, high speed rail in France has only reduced the rail “distance” between their major cities so that it is now similar to the UK. (But at generally lower frequencies, of course.)
In the British context, fair greater benefits would have been gained by spending the HS2 cash on other things.
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.
Don't forget there are two ways to purchase land, by negotiation and compulsory.
It is much easier to do the first method, and compulsory purchase is a much slower, protracted and legally more expensive process, so is used more as a last resort.
What those figures do not show is how much land was acquired by simply buying it because the owners were happy to sell up at price offered. If a lot of the route is agricultural land (which is relatively cheap) there are going to be farm owners who will have been thinking we will make a few hundred pounds a year from each acre, or we can sell up for few thousand and have cash windfall. (I don't know the actual amounts and it will vary depending on quality of farmland), so some may have quietly sold up, and are renting it back cheaply until the land is needed.
Never seen any figures on how much of the trace is in HS2s ownership, only the number of land parcels (without saying how many parcels it hasn't got)
That is true to a degree but you have to remember if you sell your land on the open market you pay all your legal/surveyor/etc fees. If you go down the compulsory purchase route the purchaser (HS2 in this case) is required to give reasonable compensation for any fees which are reasonably incurred by the seller. So in most cases even if the seller agrees to a reasonable price with the purchaser it is still best to go down the compulsory purchase route even if the sale itself is not contentious.
I do think comparing that fact that the figures known land purchased figure for Phases 1 and 2 is extremely similar to the route mileage does suggest they already own the vast vast majority of Phase 2.
That is true to a degree but you have to remember if you sell your land on the open market you pay all your legal/surveyor/etc fees. If you go down the compulsory purchase route the purchaser (HS2 in this case) is required to give reasonable compensation for fees which are reasonably incurred by the seller. So in most cases even if the seller agrees to a reasonable price with the purchaser it is still best to go down the compulsory purchase route even if the sale itself is not contentious.
I do think comparing that fact that the figures known land purchased figure for Phases 1 and 2 is extremely similar to the route mileage does suggest they already own the vast vast majority of Phase 2.
Given that all land in the UK (including agricultural land) is significantly more expensive than France can you imagine how much more over budget HS2 would be if they were paying a 30% premium on the land?
Given that all land in the UK (including agricultural land) is significantly more expensive than France can you imagine how much more over budget HS2 would be if they were paying a 30% premium on the land?
If as a matter of policy, you pay a 30% uplift when buying cheap agricultural land for the route, the owners of the (much more expensive) land in cities that you also need to buy are likely to start asking why they don't get the uplift too. At that point, it might become more than a rounding error!
Those two points are not opposites, they align. Ministers should not continually change scope, thats the main point about changes, but also better planning reduces the need for changes later on. The big issue that Sir Jon was raising when initially talking about the bat tunnel was that they needed separate approvals for almost every structure. Local authorities often delayed approvals and some led to redesigns. That is fixable.
If as a matter of policy, you pay a 30% uplift when buying cheap agricultural land for the route, the owners of the (much more expensive) land in cities that you also need to buy are likely to start asking why they don't get the uplift too. At that point, it might become more than a rounding error!
Plus fees and costs. And yet you expect we can build it at £20 million per km when you’re spending 2.5% of your total budget buying the cheapest land. In urban areas it’s more like a million pounds an acre. So that’s £2.5 plus 30% (plus fees and costs). So over 16% (not including fees and costs) is gone. In the city centres it’ll be even higher than a million per acre.
Plus fees and costs. And yet you expect we can build it at £20 million per km when you’ve spent 2.5% of your total budget buying the cheapest land. In urban areas it’s more like a million pounds an acre. So that’s £2.5 plus 30% (plus fees and costs). So over 16% (not including fees and costs) is gone.
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 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.
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.
And for the rural land even at the absolute highest price we are talking a total of maybe £150m for 500km worth so a £50m uplift.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
