Hs2 train speeds could be cut to save money — ministers weigh slowing services to shave billions
hs2 high-speed services may run slower than originally planned as ministers order a formal review of operating speeds to contain rising costs. The government has asked the company building the London-to-Birmingham line to consider lower initial speeds amid delays, a postponed executive update and projections that the line will cost more than £100bn in today’s prices and miss the current 2033 completion deadline.
Why this matters right now
The decision to force a speed review for hs2 arrives as the project confronts simultaneous pressures: cost overruns, schedule slippage and political scrutiny. The chief executive overseeing delivery was expected to announce a revised timetable and budget, including that completion would occur after the current 2033 deadline and that costs would exceed £100bn, but that statement has been delayed until after the May elections. The Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander of the Department for Transport, is weighing options intended to reduce time and taxpayer exposure.
Hs2 speed trade-off: what lies beneath
At the centre of the debate is a technical trade-off between maximum velocity and delivery complexity. The project was designed for trains capable of up to 360km/h (224mph), a figure the Department for Transport notes is faster than any other conventional railway in the world. By contrast, most high-speed services in this country run at up to 200km/h (125mph), while the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) operates at up to 300km/h.
That design specification creates testing and commissioning challenges. Trains built to the higher specification could not be assessed at their intended operating speeds until a bespoke test track existed or the railway itself was complete. The Department for Transport notes that completing such facilities would add years to the delivery timetable and cost billions. One alternative identified is to send trains overseas for high-speed testing on existing tracks in China, a move that would shift part of the commissioning process abroad rather than build expensive domestic test infrastructure.
The practical implications are already visible on route planning: sections north of Birmingham were cancelled earlier, and current plans envisage hs2 trains running from Birmingham to Manchester at reduced speed on the existing West Coast Main Line rather than on new high-speed alignment for the entire route. Major structures such as tunnels and bridges exist along parts of the line, but the route as a whole remains years from completion.
Expert perspectives and regional consequences
Heidi Alexander, Transport Secretary, Department for Transport, has been openly critical of past decisions and described the scheme as “an appalling mess”. That blunt assessment frames the political urgency behind the current instruction to consider slower initial operating speeds for hs2 as a means of clamping down on escalating costs.
HS2’s chief executive Mark Wild, chief executive, HS2, was brought in by the Labour government after prior management turmoil and had previously led Crossrail as its chief executive. He has spent more than a year on a programme-wide “reset” intended to establish a realistic schedule and budget for delivering the line. Even with that work, the reset announcement has been postponed pending the post-election statement, leaving contractors, regional planners and local authorities to digest interim choices about speed and sequencing.
Regionally, the choices on speed affect travel-time promises and the balance between new-build sections and use of existing lines. Reduced top speeds on initial services would lower the technical bar for early opening but could also diminish some of the journey-time gains originally promised to passengers and to cities expecting faster links.
Internationally, sending trains to China for testing would remove a domestic testing burden but also introduce logistical and programme risks tied to overseas commissioning, an option acknowledged within current planning discussions.
With major structures partly built but the full route incomplete, the review of operating speed is a pivotal lever for ministers seeking to contain cost and time exposure while recalibrating programme ambitions for hs2. Will slowing trains be enough to stabilize delivery, or will it only postpone more disruptive choices about scope and funding?
