High Speed 2
High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned high-speed railway proposed to London Euston from the English Midlands, Northern England, and potentially the central belt of Scotland. At present there are no plans for a link to Heathrow or a direct link to HS1 and the continent.
The project is being developed by High Speed Two Ltd, a company limited by guarantee established by the UK government. The line is to be built in two phases with the section between London and Birmingham being the first phase. The route would take the form of a "Y", with a trunk between London Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street. The route would then split into two spurs, one continuing to Manchester Piccadilly via Crewe and Manchester Airport and the other to Leeds via East Midlands and Sheffield Meadowhall.
High-speed rail is supported in principle by the three main UK political parties who argue for High Speed rail and increased capacity. Opposition centres around passenger congestion at Euston, the impact on Camden and NW London Suburbs, the Chilterns AONB, which UK cities should be served, the environmental consequences and the economic viability of the scheme.
The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government formed in May 2010 stated in its initial programme for government its commitment to creating a high-speed rail network. In January 2012 the construction of phase 1 between London and Birmingham was approved. Construction is set to begin in 2017 with an indicated opening date of 2026. In January 2013, the preliminary phase 2 route was announced with a planned completion date of 2032.
High-speed rail has been expanding across the European Union since the 1980s, with several member countries – notably France, Spain and Germany – investing heavily in the construction of new lines capable of operating at over 170 miles per hour (270 km/h). In 2009 there were reportedly 3,480 miles (5,600 km) of high-speed line in operation in Europe; a further 2,160 miles (3,480 km) were under construction and another 5,280 miles (8,500 km) were planned.
High-speed rail arrived in the United Kingdom with the opening in 2003 of the first part of High Speed 1 (then known as the 67-mile (108 km) Channel Tunnel Rail Link) between London and the Channel Tunnel. The development of a second high-speed line was proposed in 2009 by the United Kingdom Government to address capacity constraints on the West Coast Main Line railway, which is forecast to be at full capacity in 2025. Most of the rail network in Britain consists of lines constructed during the Victorian era, which do not permit speeds higher than 125 miles per hour (201 km/h). A document published by the Department for Transport in January 2009 described an increase of 50% in rail passenger traffic and a 40% increase in freight in the preceding 10 years in the UK and detailed a number of infrastructural problems. The report proposed that new high-speed lines should be constructed to address these issues and after assessing various options concluded that the most appropriate initial route for a new line was from London to the West Midlands.
High Speed Two Limited 
In January 2009, the Labour government established High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd), chaired by Sir David Rowlands, to examine the case for a new British high-speed line and present a potential route between London and the West Midlands. The government report suggested that ultimately the line could be extended to reach Scotland.
Drawing on consultations carried out for the Department for Transport (DfT) and Network Rail, HS2 Ltd would provide advice on options for a Heathrow International interchange station, access to central London, connectivity with HS1 and the existing rail network, and financing and construction, and report to government on the first stage by the end of 2009.
In August 2009, Network Rail published its own study independent of HS2's work, outlining somewhat different proposals for the expansion of the railway network which included a new high-speed rail line between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh, following a route through the West Midlands and the North-West of England.
For the HS2 report, a route was investigated to an accuracy of 0.5 metres (18 in). In December 2009, HS2 handed its report to the government. The study investigated the possibility of links to Heathrow Airport and connections with Crossrail, the Great Western Main Line, and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1), as displayed in the map shown.
Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government review 
The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, on taking office in May 2010, undertook a review of HS2 plans inherited from the previous government. The Conservative Party in opposition had backed the idea of a high-speed terminus at St Pancras with a direct link to Heathrow Airport and had adopted a policy to connect London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham with Heathrow by high-speed rail with construction starting in 2015. In March 2010 Theresa Villiers had stated "The idea that some kind of Wormwood Scrubs International station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible".
The new Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, asked Lord Mawhinney, a former Conservative Transport Secretary, to conduct an urgent review of the proposed route. The coalition government wished the high-speed line to be routed via Heathrow Airport, an idea rejected by HS2 Ltd.
Lord Mawhinney's conclusions contradicted Ms Villiers' view and Conservative policy in opposition, stating that HS2 should not go to Heathrow Airport until it reaches northern England. Routing the whole line via Heathrow would add seven minutes to the journey time of all services.
In December 2008 an article in The Economist noted the increasing political popularity of high-speed rail in Britain as a solution to transport congestion, and as an alternative to unpopular schemes such as road-tolls and runway expansion, but concluded that its future would depend on it being commercially viable. In November 2010, Philip Hammond stated that government support for HS2 did not require it to break-even directly (financially), what the Economist had called the "financial viability" test for new rail infrastructure:
If we used financial accounting we would never have any public spending, we would build nothing ... Financial accounting would strike a dagger through the whole case for public sector investment.
Public consultation 
On 20 December 2010 the government published a slightly revised line of route for public consultation, based on a Y-shaped route from London to Birmingham with branches to Leeds and Manchester, as originally put forward by Lord Adonis as Secretary of State for Transport under the previous government, with a number of alterations designed to minimise the visual, noise, and other environmental impacts of the line. In a statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State confirmed that the first phase of construction would include a high-speed line from London to Birmingham as well as a connection to High Speed 1. High-speed lines north of the West Midlands would be built in later stages, and a link to Heathrow Airport would be initially provided by a connection at Old Oak Common, with a high-speed link to the airport to be added later. The high-speed line would connect to the existing network, allowing through trains from London to northern destinations. The consultation documents were published on 11 February 2011 and the consultation period was set to run until July 2011. When the results were published, it revealed that over 90% of respondents to the consultation were against HS2.
Decision to proceed with HS2 
In January 2012 the Secretary of State for Transport announced the go-ahead for HS2. It would comprise a 'Y-shaped' network with stations at London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and the East Midlands conveying up to 26,000 people each hour at speeds of up to 250 mph. It would be built in two stages. Phase one would be a 140-mile route from London to the West Midlands which would be constructed by 2026. Phase two, from Birmingham to both Leeds and Manchester, would be constructed by 2033. Consultation on this phase would begin in early 2014 with a final route chosen by the end of 2014. Additional tunnelling and other measures to meet local communities' and environmental concerns were also announced. The legislative process would be achieved through two hybrid bills, one for each phase.
Legal challenges 
At the end of March 2012 the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) announced that it had submitted a complaint to the European Commission that the UK government, in failing to carry out a strategic environmental assessment ahead of deciding on the route of Phase I of HS2, was in breach of European Union legislation. BBOWT said that the complaint would only be considered by the EU Commission after the UK Courts had concluded consideration of various judicial reviews submitted to them.
In April 2012 five requests for judicial review were submitted to the UK Courts, two by HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) and one each by the 51m Group, Aylesbury Park Golf Club, and Heathrow Hub Ltd. In its applications HS2AA claimed that the government failed to carry out a proper strategic environmental assessment and that it provided inadequate information to the public during the public consultation. As a consequence the HS2AA claimed that the Secretary of State's decision to approve Phase I of HS2 was made without proper justification, that it ignored the government's own processes and assessment criteria, and relied on undisclosed material. In a separate judicial review request the 51m Group challenged the UK government on several grounds. Firstly, that it failed to consult properly on the original or the revised route. Secondly, that it failed to consider the impact of HS2 on the London Underground network. Thirdly, that it did not take proper account of the environmental impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a number of important wildlife habitats, and finally that the hybrid bill approach was 'incompatible with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Aylesbury Park Golf Club's proceedings are based on the impact of the proposed route which will pass through part of the club. Heathrow Hub Ltd, a company owned by Arup, announced it has also started proceedings on the grounds that the UK Government could choose an alternative route which would provide an improved connection between HS2 and Crossrail via a transport hub built on land owned by the company.
At the end of July 2012 a High Court Judge gave permission for the five judicial reviews to proceed with individual hearings set for an eight-day period in early December 2012. The judge also confirmed that the cases of the HS2AA, 51M and Heathrow Hub, whose consultation responses had been lost by HS2 Ltd, could be amended to incorporate this defect in their claims. A further hearing was also set for October 2012 for the Government to explain its continued refusal to release passenger data relating to the West Coast Main Line.
On 15 March 2013, judgement was handed down for all of the judicial review claims against Secretary of State for Transport. Ouseley J rejected all but one of the claims. In para 843 of the Judgement he concluded that "The consultation process in respect of blight and compensation was all in all so unfair as to be unlawful." Permission to appeal has been granted on 2 grounds: applicability of Strategic Environmental Assessment to the project and re-consultation of 'optimised alternative'.
Phase 1 – London to the West Midlands 
As proposed in March 2010, the line would run from London Euston, mainly in tunnel, to an interchange with Crossrail west of London Paddington, then along the New North Main Line (Acton-Northolt Line) past West Ruislip and alongside the Chiltern Main Line with a 2.5-mile (4.0 km) viaduct over the Grand Union Canal and River Colne, and then from the M25 to Amersham in a new 6-mile (9.7 km) tunnel. After emerging from the tunnel, the line would run parallel to the existing A413 road and London to Aylesbury Line, through the 29-mile (47 km) wide Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, passing close by Great Missenden to the east, alongside Wendover immediately to the west, then on to Aylesbury. After Aylesbury, the line would run alongside the Aylesbury – Verney Junction line, joining it north of Quainton Road and then striking out to the north-west across open countryside through North Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, South Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. A number of alignments were studied, and in September 2010 HS2 Ltd set out recommendations for altering the course at certain locations.
In December 2010, the Transport Secretary announced several amendments to the line of route aimed at mitigating vibration, noise, or visual impact. These changes include, at Primrose Hill, north London, moving the tunnel 100 metres (330 ft) further north, and in west London reducing the width of the Northolt Corridor; lowering the alignment and creating a 900-metre (3,000 ft) green tunnel in Buckinghamshire at South Heath; at nearby Amersham, where two footpaths would otherwise be severed, at Chipping Warden, Northamptonshire and Burton Green, Warwickshire, green bridges would be constructed; the alignment would be moved away from the settlements of Brackley, Northamptonshire, Ladbroke and Stoneleigh in Warwickshire and Lichfield in southern Staffordshire, and from the Grade I listed buildings Hartwell House, Buckinghamshire, and Edgcote House in Northamptonshire."Changes to the HS2 proposed line of route" (Press release). HS2 Ltd. 20 December 2010.
In January 2012, the Transport Secretary announced further revisions to the Phase 1 route. The key revisions included a new 2.7-mile (4.3 km) tunnel at South Ruislip avoiding the Chiltern Line and mitigating the impact in the Ruislip area; realignment of the route and extension of the continuous tunnel, originally from the M25 to Amersham, to near Little Missenden; at Wendover and nearby South Heath extension to the green tunnels to reduce impact on local communities; an extension to the green tunnel beside Chipping Warden and Aston Le Walls; and realignment to avoid heritage sites around Edgcote. The revised route would comprise 22.5 miles (36.2 km) in tunnel or green tunnel compared to 14.5 miles (23.3 km), a 55% increase. Overall, 79 miles (127 km) of the 140-mile (230 km) route will be in tunnel or cutting, while 40 miles (64 km) will be on viaduct or embankment, a reduction of 10 miles (16 km) from the route in the original consultation documents.
In April 2013 a decision by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport to recommend further bore tunneling under the 9 km (6 mi) of the 'Northolt Corridor' in the London Borough of Ealing was announced in an HS2 Ltd press release. The tunnel will minimize blight for residents and businesses and eliminate the substantial impact of traffic which a surface route would otherwise have caused. The further bore tunneling will link up the tunnels already planned beneath South Ruislip and Ruislip Gardens and Old Oak Common to North Acton. HS2 Ltd found in a study they had undertaken that bore tunneling this specific stretch of the HS2 route will take 15 months less time than constructing a surface HS2 route through this area would have done, and in addition will be at least cost neutral. The cost neutrality is due to the fact that 20 bridge replacements including 3.5 years to replace both road over rail bridges at the Hanger Lane Gyratory System, amenity disruption, the construction two tunnel portals and the likelihood of substantial compensation payments will all be avoided. The proposed tunnel will be included as the preferred option in the draft Environmental Statement for the first phase of HS2. The decision to recommend tunneling the section of HS2 route through the London Borough of Ealing has been well received and has been billed as a victory for local residents and local grassroots activism. In addition to preventing blight to homes, schools and businesses the decision will also help to preserve the tranquility of Perivale Wood, an ancient wood, bird sanctuary and Britain's second oldest nature reserve, Tunneling HS2 in this section of the route will additionally free up the New North Main Line for future local rail services.
Heathrow access 
While in opposition in 2009, the Conservative Party stated that, if elected to government, it would go forward with a high-speed line connecting London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, with a long-term aim of linking to Scotland, as well as other English cities.
Consultants Arup had previously suggested in Heathrow Hub Arup Submission to HS2 that a 200-acre (81 ha) site at the Thorney part of Iver, north-east of the intersection of the M25 and M4, could house a railway station of 12 or more platforms, as well as a coach and bus station and a 6th airport terminal. Under this proposal, the high-speed line would then follow a different route to Birmingham, running parallel to existing motorways and railways as with HS1 in Kent.Arup (15 April 2010). "A submission to Lord Mawhinney's Review". Arup's proposal was supported by the Conservatives in their 2009 policy paper, which envisaged connections to cities on the Great Western main line (Bristol and Cardiff) as well as high-speed connections both to the new high-speed line to the north and to the European destinations provided by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
According to Lord Mawhinney's July 2010 report, the Heathrow station should be directly beneath Heathrow Central station (not at Iver, see Heathrow Hub) and the London terminus for HS2 should be at the 2018 Crossrail station Old Oak Common, not Euston. This slightly further from the centre of London plan properly named "A Heathrow Hub with Old Oak Common terminus" was initially supported by the Conservative Party and was replaced by a rebuilt Euston and proposed phase-2 High Speed Spur to Heathrow in the final consultation plan.
In December 2010, the coalition government announced that a high speed connection with Heathrow Airport would be built as part of the second phase of the project and that until then connections would be made at Old Oak Common, where High Speed 2 would have an interchange station with the Heathrow Express and Crossrail.
Phase 2 – West Midlands to Manchester and Leeds 
Phase 2 of the HS2 project envisages a Y-shaped route extending north of Birmingham with separate branches to Manchester and Leeds after Birmingham. The consultation on the route is planned to take place in 2014, and the line is expected to be built by 2033. It is currently planned that the Leeds branch would diverge just north of Coleshill and head in a north-easterly direction roughly parallel to the M42 motorway. The Manchester branch would be an extension of the Phase 1 line north of Lichfield beyond the connecting spur to the West Coast Main Line (WCML). The line will continue north, with a second connection to the WCML at Crewe, although there will be no high-speed station at Crewe. At Millington in Cheshire, the line will divide into a triangular junction, with the Manchester branch veering east, another connecting spur to the West Coast Main Line and a third line linking the Manchester branch to the West Coast route. Close to Manchester Airport, the route will enter a 10-mile (16 km) tunnel, emerging at Ardwick where the line will continue to its terminus at Manchester Piccadilly.
The route to the West Midlands will be the first stage of a line to Scotland, and passengers travelling to or from Scotland will be able to use through trains with a saving of 45 minutes from day one. It was recommended by a Parliamentary select committee on HS2 in November 2011 that a statutory clause should be in the bill that will guarantee HS2 being constructed beyond Birmingham so that the economic benefits are spread further.
Future phases - Scotland 
In Scotland, a number of business and governmental organisations including Network Rail, CBI Scotland and Transport Scotland (the transport agency of the Scottish Government) formed the Scottish Partnership Group for High-Speed Rail in 2001 to campaign for the extension of the HS2 project north to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Scottish Partnership Group published a study which outlined a case for extending high-speed rail to Scotland, proposing a route north of Manchester to Edinburgh and Glasgow as well as an extension to Newcastle. At present there are no DfT proposals to extend high speed lines north of either Leeds or Manchester.
In November 2012, the Scottish Government announced plans to build a 46-mile (74 km) high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The proposed link would reduce journey times between the two cities to under 30 minutes and is planned to open by 2024, eventually connecting to the high-speed network being developed in England.
Proposed service pattern 
The Department for Transport's economic case for High Speed Two, updated for Phase 2, gives a provisional service pattern for the new line:
|Start||Destination||Trains per hour||Intermediate stations|
|London Euston||Curzon Street||Three (four in peak)||Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange|
|Manchester Piccadilly||Three||Old Oak Common, Wilmslow (1tph), Stockport|
|Liverpool Lime Street||Two||Stafford and Runcorn (1tph), Warrington Bank Quay (1tph)|
|Preston||One||Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western|
|Glasgow Central||One||Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston|
|Start||Destination||Trains per hour||Intermediate stations|
|London Euston||Curzon Street||Three||Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange (2tph)[a]|
|Manchester Piccadilly||Three||Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange (1tph)|
|Liverpool Lime Street||Two||Stafford (1tph),[a] Crewe (1tph), Runcorn|
|Preston||One||Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western|
|Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley||One||Birmingham Interchange and Preston (1tph), Carstairs[b]|
|Leeds New Lane||Three||Birmingham Interchange and Meadowhall (1tph), East Midlands Hub only (1tph), East Midlands Hub and Meadowhall (1tph)|
|York||One||East Midlands Hub|
|Newcastle||Two||York (1tph), Darlington (1tph)|
|Curzon Street||Manchester Piccadilly||Two||Non-stop|
|Leeds New Lane||Two||East Midlands Hub, Meadowhall|
|Newcastle||One||East Midlands Hub, Meadowhall, York, Darlington, Durham|
|Glasgow Central||One per two hours||Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie|
|Edinburgh Waverley||One per two hours||Wigan North Western, Preston, Oxenholme, Carlisle, Lockerbie|
|Heathrow Airport||Manchester Piccadilly||One||Birmingham Interchange|
|Leeds New Lane||One||Birmingham Interchange, East Midlands Hub, Meadowhall|
Connection to other lines 
High Speed 1 
The government 2010 command paper stated:
... the new British high speed rail network should be connected to the wider European high speed rail network via High Speed One and the Channel Tunnel, subject to cost and value for money. This could be achieved through either or both of a dedicated rapid transport system linking Euston and St Pancras and a direct rail link to High Speed One.
The March 2010 engineering study conducted by Arup for HS2 Ltd costed a "classic speed" GC loading gauge direct rail link at £458m (single track) or £812m (double track). This link would go from Old Oak Common feeding into the High Speed 1 network at St Pancras, via tunnel and the North London Line with a high-level junction north of St Pancras station for non-stopping services. The study found the same double-track high-speed connection would cost £3.6bn (4.4 times greater than for classic speed).
The Department for Transport High Speed 2 report of the same date recommended that, if a direct rail link is built, it should be the classic-speed, double-track option.
In December 2010 Arup's final report concluded the best option would be a connection with High Speed 1 as part of the first phase of construction using a tunnel between Old Oak Common on the Great Western Main Line and Crossrail and nearby Chalk Farm on the North London Line, and then using existing lines to connect north of St Pancras. The proposed connection would be built to GC loading gauge and would not be suitable in this stretch for running at high speed.
However, in August 2012 the Secretary of State for Transport announced it had asked HS2 Ltd to look for a better link between HS2 and HS1 than provided in that plan.
In parallel with this, the Mayor of London's Transport for London team had already been looking at route options including potentially incorporating Euston in a north-south Crossrail 2 that might improve further the economic prospects of the proposal, which a direct link to HS2 might provide. The Mayor's Office suggested that a direct link between HS1 and HS2 could be achieved by modifying the Crossrail 2 route proposals and providing a direct rail link between the termini for the two high speed rail lines at Euston and St Pancras stations.
As a consequence of Crossrail 2 coming to Euston, major modifications would need to made to the current redevelopment plans for Euston, geared solely to HS2 which does not provide sufficient capacity to deal with the additional passenger demand from its becoming a stop of Crossrail 2 as well as for certain HS2 services.
In January 2013 rail expert Dick Keegan, former director of projects at British Rail, called for HS2 to have instead Stratford International station as its London terminus. The benefits mooted are a direct link to HS1 and on to continental Europe, greater capacity (Eurostar services do not currently stop at this station), fast access into central London from Stratford Regional station, and the ability to create the connection without the need to demolish homes and businesses, as is planned as part of the Euston redevelopment.
West Coast Main Line in Staffordshire 
Possible Crossrail 2 
Should proposals for a north-south line Crossrail 2 in London (which will be additional to Thameslink) achieve funding, then Transport for London have expressed an interest in constructing this to mitigate the distribution of arriving passengers from HS2 at Euston.
Journey times 
The DfT's latest revised estimates of journey times for some major destinations once the line has been built as far as Leeds and Manchester, set out in the January 2012 document High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future – Decisions and Next Steps, are as follows: The intermediate timings given after the section to Birmingham has been built (Phase 1) are taken from an earlier document. Times given for Sheffield, Leeds and Edinburgh are for trains via Birmingham: until Phase 2 almost all trains from these cities to/from London will continue to use direct 'classic' lines.
|London to/from:||Standard journey time before HS2:||Fastest journey time before HS2:||Standard journey time after HS2 Phase 1:||Standard journey time after HS2 Phase 2:|
|Birmingham||1:24||1:12[t 1]||0:49||no change|
|Leeds||2:20||1:59[t 4]||no change||1:28|
|Sheffield||2:09||2:05[t 5]||no change||1:10|
|Newcastle||2:50||2:37[t 6]||no change||2:18|
|Edinburgh||4:30||4:00[t 7]||no change||3:39|
- Birmingham: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:30 New Street–08:42 Euston
- Manchester: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:00 Piccadilly–08:58 Euston
- Liverpool: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:00 Lime Street–09:01 Euston
- Leeds: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:00 Leeds–08:59 King's Cross
- Sheffield: two trains per day, northbound: St Pancras–Sheffield
- Newcastle: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:03 Newcastle Central–09:40 King's Cross
- Edinburgh: one train per day, in one direction only: 05:40 Waverley–09:40 King's Cross
- Glasgow: one train per day, in one direction only: 16:30 Euston–20:38 Glasgow Central
Planned stations 
London and Birmingham 
Central London 
Under the March 2010 scheme, HS2 will start from a rebuilt London Euston. The station will be extended to the south and west with significant construction above. Twenty-four platforms will serve High Speed and classic lines to the Midlands, with six underground lines. The connection with Crossrail at Old Oak Common in West London is designed to mitigate the extra burden on Euston, although Euston too would see its underground station rebuilt and integrated with Euston Square. A rapid transit 'people mover' link between Euston and St Pancras might be provided and it is proposed to route the proposed Crossrail 2 (Chelsea–Hackney line) via Euston to cope with increased passenger demand.
A review by former Conservative Transport Secretary Lord Mawhinney suggested that HS2 should terminate at Old Oak Common, not Euston. He questioned the sense of HS2 terminating at Euston, HS1 at St Pancras, with no through running connection between them. Plans as at October 2012 propose a link via an upgraded section of the North London Line to enable three trains per hour to run through to HS1 and the Channel Tunnel, bypassing Euston. In addition, a 'people mover' link is proposed between the stations.
West London 
A report published in March 2010 proposed that all trains would stop at a "Crossrail interchange" near Old Oak Common, between Paddington and Acton Main Line, with connections for Crossrail, Heathrow Express, and the Great Western Main Line to Heathrow Airport, Reading, South West England and South Wales. The station might also have interchange with London Overground and Southern on the North London and West London Lines and also with London Underground's Central Line.
Lord Mawhinney recommended that HS2 should terminate at Old Oak Common because of its good connections and in order to save the cost of tunnelling to Euston. The HS2 route published on 10 January 2012 included stations at both Euston and Old Oak Common.
Bickenhill ("Birmingham Interchange") 
The March 2010 report proposed that a new "Birmingham Interchange" station in rural Solihull, on the other side of the M42 motorway from the National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Station. The interchange will be connected by a people mover to the other sites; the AirRail Link people mover already operates between Birmingham International station and the airport.
According to Birmingham Airport's chief executive Paul Kehoe, HS2 is a key element in increasing the number of flights using the airport, and patronage by inhabitants of London and the South-East, as HS2 will reduce travelling times to Birmingham Airport from London to under 40 minutes.
Birmingham city centre 
New Street station, the main station serving central Birmingham, has been described as operating at full capacity and being unable to accommodate new high-speed services. A new terminus for HS2, termed "Birmingham Curzon Street" in the government's command paper and "Birmingham Fazeley Street" in the report produced by High Speed 2 Ltd, would be built on land between Moor Street Queensway and the site of Curzon Street Station. It would be reached via a spur line from a triangular junction with the HS2 main line at Coleshill.
As of January 2012[update] there are no plans for the Curzon Street/Fazeley Street terminus to be used by other rail services, but it will be adjacent to Moor Street station and the two stations could be directly linked. A link to New Street station via a people mover with a journey time of two minutes is possible. The walking route between New St and Moor St has been considered in the redevelopment of New St station, which will have a new footbridge at its east entrance The other city-centre station, Snow Hill, is just a couple of minutes' train journey from Moor Street station.
Development planning for the Fazely St quarter of Birmingham has changed as a result of HS2. Prior to announcement of the HS2 station, Birmingham City University had planned to build a new campus in Eastside. The proposed Eastside development will now include a new museum quarter, with the original stone Curzon St station building becoming a new museum of photography, fronting onto a new Curzon Square, which will also be home to Ikon 2 a museum of contemporary art.
Birmingham and Manchester (Phase 2) 
Proposals for the station locations were announced on 28 January 2013.
HS2 will pass through Staffordshire and Cheshire, in tunnel under Crewe station but not stopping at Crewe railway station. However, the HS2 line will be linked to the West Coast Main Line via a grade-separated junction just south of Crewe, enabling "classic compatible" trains exiting the high-speed line to call at the existing Crewe station.
Manchester Airport 
A Manchester Interchange station is planned to serve Manchester Airport on the southern boundary of Manchester. It will be located next to Junction 5 of the M56 motorway on the northern side of the airport and approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) north-west of Manchester Airport railway station. Manchester Airport is the busiest airport outside the London region and offers more destinations than any other British airport. An airport station was recommended by local authorities during the consultation stage. The government agreed in January 2013 for an airport station but agreed only on the basis that private investment was involved, such as funding from the Manchester Airports Group to build the station. The average journey from London Euston to Manchester Airport would be 59 minutes.
Manchester city centre 
The route will continue from the airport into Manchester city centre via a 7.5-mile (12.1 km) bored tunnel under the dense urban districts of south Manchester before surfacing at Ardwick. If built, if will represent one of the major engineering feats of HS2 and will be the longest rail tunnel to be built in the United Kingdom, surpassing the 6.2-mile (10.0 km) High Speed 1 tunnel completed in 2004. The 7.6 mile twin-bore tunnel be at an average depth of 33 metres and trains will travel at 142 mph (228 km/h) through the tunnel. The diameter size of the tunnel is dependent on the train speed and length of the tunnel. It is envisaged both tunnels will be, as an 'absolute minimum', at least 7.25 metres in diameter to accommodate the high speed trains.
Up to fifteen sites were put forward including Sportcity, Pomona Island, expanding Deansgate railway station and re-configuring the grade-II listed Manchester Central into a station. Three final sites made the long list: Manchester Piccadilly station, Salford Central station and a newly built station at Salford Middlewood Locks. Three approaches were considered, one via the M62, one via the River Mersey and the other through south Manchester. Both Manchester and Salford City Council recommended routing High Speed 2 to Manchester Piccadilly to maximise economic potential and connectivity rather than building a new station at a greater cost and which could be isolated from existing transport links.
HS2 trains will terminate at an upgraded Manchester Piccadilly station. At least four new 400-metre-long (1,300 ft) platforms will be built to accommodate the new high-speed trains in addition to the two platforms which are currently planned as part of the Northern Hub proposal. It is envisaged Platform 1 under the existing listed train shed will also be converted to a fifth HS2 platform. The HS2 concourse will be connected to the existing concourse at Piccadilly. HS2 will reduce the average journey time from central Manchester to central London from 2 hours 8 minutes to 1 hour 8 minutes.
Birmingham and Leeds branch (Phase 2) 
A new station in the East Midlands is proposed, which might be a parkway station,[note 1] to serve Nottingham, Derby and Leicester. The Derbyshire and Nottingham Chamber supported high-speed rail coming to the East Midlands but was concerned that a parkway station instead of centrally located city stations would result in no overall net benefit in journey times. East Midlands Parkway railway station was recently constructed on the Midland Main Line south of Derby and Nottingham. HS2 would continue north to a station at Meadowhall Interchange in South Yorkshire (serving Sheffield and surrounding large towns), terminating in West Yorkshire in central Leeds with a new station called Leeds New Lane. This new station will link with Leeds railway station by a walkway with the possibility of moving walkways.
HS2 will reduce the average journey time from central Leeds to London from 2 hours 20 minutes to 1 hour 28 minutes.
The Department for Transport report on High Speed Rail published in March 2010 sets out the specifications for a high-speed line. It will be built to a European structure gauge (as was HS1) and will conform to European Union technical standards for interoperability for high-speed rail (EU Directive 96/48/EC). HS2 Ltd's report assumed a GC structure gauge for passenger capacity estimations, with a maximum design speed of 250 miles per hour (400 km/h). Initially, trains would run at a maximum 225 miles per hour (360 km/h).
Freight trains could use the line only within a limited night-time window, due to their lower speed. The new line would release capacity for freight on the existing West Coast Main Line and Midland Main Line.
Signalling would be based on the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) with in-cab signalling, to resolve the visibility issues associated with lineside signals at speeds over 125 miles per hour (200 km/h).
Platform height will be at the European standard of 760 millimetres (2 ft 6 in).
Rolling stock 
The rolling stock for HS2 has not yet been specified in any detail. The 2010 DfT government command paper outlined some requirements for the train design among its recommendations for design standards for the HS2 network. A photograph of a French AGV (Automotrice à grande vitesse) was used as an example of the latest high-speed rail technology. The paper addressed the particular problem of designing trains to continental European standards, which use taller and wider rolling stock, requiring a larger structure gauge than the rail network in Great Britain.
The report proposed the development of two new types of train to make best use of the European-standard line:
- Wider and taller trains built to a European loading gauge, which would be confined to the high-speed network (including HS1 and HS2) and other lines cleared to their loading gauge.
- 'Classic compatible' trains, capable of high speed but built to a British loading gauge to permit them to leave the high-speed line to join conventional routes such as the West Coast Main Line, Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line.[note 2] Such trains would allow running of HS2 services to the north of England and Scotland. HS2 Ltd has stated that, because of their non-standard nature, these classic-compatible trains were expected to be more expensive.
Both types of train would have a maximum speed of at least 220 miles per hour (350 km/h) and length of 200 metres (660 ft). Two units could be joined together for a 400-metre (1,300 ft) train, but only platforms specially built or rebuilt for the high-speed line would be able to accommodate such long trains.
The DfT report also considered the possibility of 'gauge clearance' work on non-high-speed lines as an alternative to 'classic compatible' trains. This work would involve extensive reconstruction of stations, tunnels and bridges and widening of clearances to allow European-profile trains to run beyond the high-speed network. The report concluded that although initial outlay on commissioning new rolling stock would be high, it would cost less than the widespread disruption of rebuilding large tracts of Britain's rail infrastructure.
Maintenance depot 
In April 2010 Arup was asked to develop proposals for the location, engineering specification and site layout of the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD). The general location of the IMD was identified as ideally adjacent to, or within 10k of the intersection of the preferred HS2 route and the East West Rail (EWR) route near Steeple Claydon/Calvert in Buckinghamshire. The feasibility of using the MoD site at Bicester as the IMD was also considered. Six such potential sites were shortlisted and rated against the specification. The preferred site, called 'Thame Road' (at Claydon Junction), and a fall-back site, 'Great Pond' were announced in December 2010. The nearby Calvert Waste Plant has also been identified for heat and power generation.
Upgrading existing lines from London to Birmingham instead of building HS2 will cost more (£20bn) and would provide only two-thirds the extra capacity of HS2, according to Lord Adonis.
Timeline to opening 
HS2 Ltd suggested that, following ministerial approval, public consultation, parliamentary approval through a hybrid bill, and detailed design, construction of the London-Birmingham section could begin in mid-2018. This is estimated to require six-and-a-half years, with a further year to finish testing. Reconstruction of Euston station and preparation of related infrastructure is expected to require the full length of the construction period to complete. Other major construction elements include the Old Oak Common and Birmingham stations (over four years), and the tunnelling work (Old Oak to Euston, Little Missenden, Ufton Wood, Chalfont and Amersham), all estimated to require over four years for construction. Opening would be at the end of 2025.
The command paper suggested that opening to Birmingham should be possible by the end of 2026. The timetable included the additional work of preparing the routes to Leeds and Manchester, for approval by Parliament in the hybrid bill. The initial Y-shaped network was to be presented in one bill to simplify planning and minimise the parliamentary time required for the bill.
Government rationale 
A 2008 paper, 'Delivering a Sustainable Transport System' identified fourteen strategic national transport corridors in England, and described the London – West Midlands – North West England route as the "single most important and heavily used" and also as the one which presented "both the greatest challenges in terms of future capacity and the greatest opportunities to promote a shift of passenger and freight traffic from road to rail". They noted that railway passenger numbers had been growing significantly in recent years and that the Rugby – Euston section was already operating at up to 80% of capacity in the 2009 morning peak,[dubious ] also that the DfT expected the WCML to have insufficient capacity south of Rugby sometime around 2025. This is despite the major WCML upgrade which was completed in 2008, lengthened trains and an assumption that plans to upgrade the route with cab signalling would be realised.
According to the DfT, the primary purpose of HS2 is to provide additional capacity on the rail network from London to the Midlands and North. They say that the new line "would improve rail services from London to cities in the North of England and Scotland, and that the chosen route to the west of London will improve passenger transport links to Heathrow Airport". Additionally, if the new line were connected to the Great Western Main Line (GWML) and Crossrail it would provide links with East and West London, and the Thames Valley.
In launching the project, the DfT announced that HS2 between London and the West Midlands would follow a different Alignment from the WCML, rejecting the option of further upgrading or building new tracks alongside the WCML as being too costly and disruptive, and because the Victorian-era WCML alignment was not suitable for very high speeds.
The Government expects that over the next 30 years, HS2 will cost £32 billion to build, provide £43.7 billion of economic benefits and generate £27 billion in fares.
Organisations that support the HS2 project include:
- The three major UK political parties: Conservative, Labour (albeit with some criticism of the proposed route) and the Liberal Democrats.
- Greengauge 21, a not-for-profit research company which focuses on investigating high-speed rail technology,
- The Campaign for HSR, a campaign group led by Professor David Begg which aims to canvas support from businesses across the UK to promote the case for proposed high-speed rail. The campaign currently has support from over 400 UK businesses.
- HSR:UK, a group of city councils: Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, and Sheffield.
- Go-HS2, a group comprising Centro, Birmingham City Council, Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, Birmingham Airport and the NEC Group. The objective of the group is to promote the benefits that its members believe HS2 will bring to Birmingham and the West Midlands.
- The Passenger Transport Executives Group (PTEG), which represents six Passenger Transport Executives.
- The Scottish Government, which is generally supportive of the HS2 project and has been engaged in discussions with the UK Government about the development of a Scottish high-speed railway connecting to London and continental Europe, with the aim of reducing journey times to London from Scotland to under 3 hours.
- The North East Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Support has been confirmed by local authorities in the North of England such as Manchester and Leeds City Councils
- Hammersmith and Fulham Council, which reaffirmed its support for the project in January 2012. The council's cabinet member for strategy was reported as saying "HS2 is the fastest way to deliver much-needed new homes, jobs and opportunities in one of London's poorest areas."
High Speed 2 is opposed by:
- The 51m group, which consists of 19 local authorities along or adjacent to the route. It suggests the project will cost each Parliamentary Constituency £51 million. Constituent members of 51m include Buckinghamshire County Council, London Borough of Hillingdon, Warwickshire County Council, Leicestershire County Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Coventry City Council and Camden Borough Council. The other councils that have declared their opposition are Northamptonshire and Staffordshire County Councils.
- The HS2 Action Alliance, an umbrella group for opposition groups including ad hoc entities, residents' associations, and parish councils. The Alliance's primary aim is to prevent HS2 from happening; secondary aims include evaluating and minimising the impacts of HS2 on individuals, communities and the environment, and communication of facts about HS2, and its compensation scheme. Even after the latest changes made to the scheme to mitigate concerns, it continues to be opposed by some MPs and personalities on the line of route. A member[who?] of the 'HS2 Action Alliance' has criticised the Department of Transport's demand forecasts as being too high, as well as having other shortcomings in the assessment methodology.
- The UK Independence Party (UKIP), which is fully opposed nationally and locally to the proposed HS2 plans. UKIP says there is no business case, no environment case and no money to pay for it. UKIP has been campaigning against HS2 as it is also part of the EU's Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) Policy.
- The Green Party, which voted to oppose the HS2 plans at its Spring 2011 conference on environmental and economic grounds. Alan Francis, the party transport spokesperson, had previously outlined its support for high-speed rail in principle in terms of benefits to capacity, reduced journey times and reduced carbon emissions, but recommended a line restricted to 190 to 200 miles per hour (300 to 320 km/h) which would enable it to use existing transport corridors to a greater extent and increase efficiency.
- The New Economics Foundation, a think tank promoting environmentalism, localism and anti-capitalism. It published a formal response to the public consultation on 5 August 2011 which concluded that the case for a high-speed rail link was incomplete and that the benefits of the scheme had been "over-emphasised" by its promoters.
- The Taxpayers Alliance, an anti-tax pressure group, which describes the project as a white elephant.
- The Independent newspaper, which considers the costs excessive and the benefits uncertain. An investigation published on 3 February 2013 claimed that 350 wildlife sites would be destroyed by the new HS2 line and an accompanying editorial argued that environmentalists should oppose the project. A separate investigation published on 10 March 2013 suggests that the project was unlikely to keep within its £33bn budget.
Organisations with noncommittal, ambiguous or dissatisfied positions include:
- The Right Lines Charter, an umbrella group established in 2011 for several environmental and other organisations that support the principle of a high-speed rail network but believe that the current HS2 scheme is unsound. Members include the Campaign for Better Transport, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Railfuture.
- Arup, which did the engineering work to identify routes for HS2 Ltd., has opposed the chosen route for HS2 (route 3) calling it "deeply flawed" It says the route should link to Heathrow and then follow the M40 motorway and Chiltern railway line, improving the business case, lowering construction costs and creating less impact on the countryside.
- Railfuture, a railway campaigning organisation, which supports high-speed rail in principle, but stated in its submission to the Transport Select Committee Inquiry that it sees no benefit in trains running at up to 250 miles per hour (400 km/h) and therefore is not in favour of the current proposal and route, and suggests that alternatives be investigated.
- The Campaign to Protect Rural England, which believes that lower speeds would increase journey times only slightly, while allowing the line to run along existing motorway and railway corridors, reducing intrusion.
- The Wildlife Trusts, which have criticised the proposals, stating that the former Government's policy on High Speed Rail (March 2010) underestimated the effect on wildlife habitats (with 4 SSSIs and over 50 of other types of nature site affected), as well as noting that the proposals had not comprehensively shown any significant effect on transport carbon emissions and questioning the economic benefits of a line. The trusts called for additional research to be done on the effects of a high-speed line.
- The Federation of Small Businesses, which has expressed scepticism over the need for high-speed rail, stating that roads expenditure was more useful for its members.
- The Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce, which opined that HS2 offered no benefit to its area.
- The Commons Transport Committee, which in November 2011 reported that the scheme had "a good case" and offered "a new era of inter-urban travel in Britain." However, they also said that there should be a firm commitment made now to extend the line to Manchester and Leeds and that other investment in rail should not suffer, and noted a poor level of public debate which had failed to address the facts and had resorted to name-calling and accusations of nimbyism. While questioning some data it found a good economic case for the project bringing more benefits than a conventional rail line, that the noise impact would be less than feared and that while it would not reduce carbon dioxide emissions they would be smaller than under further motorway or air traffic expansion and that the business case for diverting via Heathrow had not been made. The report's findings were welcomed by the Association of Train Operating Companies, the Campaign for Better Transport, the Countryside Alliance and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Action Groups Against High Speed Two (AGHAST) condemned the authors as a 'partisan committee' though they welcomed some of the findings saying it poked holes in the Government's arguments.
Hybrid bill 
To implement the HS2 proposals the government will introduce on behalf of HS2 Ltd two hybrid bills, one for each phase, as the railway will impact on private individuals and organisations along the route or elsewhere. Each bill is required to address the environmental impact and how this will be mitigated, and to allow individuals affected to petition parliament to seek amendments or assurances. The timeline requires for the legislation relating to the construction and operation of phase 1 to be introduced to parliament towards the end of 2013 and to pass into law by the spring of 2015. The hybrid bill for phase 2 will be prepared for January 2015.
A legal requirement of the hybrid bill is the production and deposition of an Environmental impact assessment (EIA) to identify the significant impacts on the community, property, landscape, visual amenity, biodiversity, surface and ground water, archaeology, traffic, transport, waste and resources. Proposals to avoid, reduce or remedy significant adverse impacts through mitigation measures are also required. HS2 Ltd announced its intention to consult on the 'scope and methodology' of the EIA in April 2012 and based on this will publish a draft environmental statement on which it intends to consult with national bodies and local authorities and community forums along the route, in the spring of 2013.
Community engagement 
HS2 Ltd announced in March 2012 that it will conduct consultations with local people and organisations along the London to West Midlands route through community forums, planning forums and an environment forum. Between them the forums will discuss the development of the route, the identification of potential impacts and look at the best approaches to mitigate these. HS2 has also confirmed that the consultations will be conducted in line with the terms of the Aarhus Convention which commits organisations to provide access to environmental information they hold, and enable participation and challenge as part of decision making processes.
Community forums 
HS2 Ltd set up 25 community forums along the London to West Midlands section of the route in March 2012. The forums provide for representatives of local authorities, residents associations, special interest groups and environment bodies in each community forum area to 'engage' with HS2 Ltd to:- "discuss potential ways to avoid and mitigate the environmental impacts of the route, such as screening views of the railway; managing noise and reinstating highways; highlight local priorities for the route design; identify possible community benefits." Forum meetings will take place every 2–3 months and will have an independent chairman appointed by HS2.
Planning forums 
Six planning forums with their scope aligned to local authority boundaries along Phase 1 of the route were announced by HS2 in April 2012. Membership would comprise HS2 Ltd and officers from highway and planning authorities. Meeting every two months their particular focus would include, location specific constraints, design and impacts, including construction; spatial planning considerations; the planning regime to be set out in the hybrid bill; and proposals for mitigations.
Environment forum 
An environment forum involving HS2 Ltd and national representatives of environmental organisations and government departments has been formed to assist with the development of the HS2 environmental policy.
Environmental and community impact 
Visual impact 
The visual impact of HS2 has received particular attention in the Chilterns, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Government announced in January 2011 that £2m would be spent planting trees along sections of the route to mitigate the visual impact.
Property demolition and land take 
HS2's first phase would result in the demolition of more than 400 houses; 250 around Euston station, 20–30 between Old Oak Common and West Ruislip, a number in Ealing, around 50 in Birmingham, and the remainder in pockets along the route. This includes nine Grade II listed buildings and possibly a Grade II* listed farmhouse at Hampton in Arden.
Loss of wildlife habitat, and recreation space 
David Lidington, MP for Aylesbury, raised concerns that the route could damage the 29 miles (47 km)-wide Chiltern Hills area of outstanding natural beauty, the Colne Valley regional park on the outskirts of London, and other areas of green belt.
HS2's preferred route passes through the Chilterns in Buckinghamshire via the Misbourne Valley. Initially through a tunnel beneath Chalfont St Giles emerging just after Amersham, then past Wendover and Stoke Mandeville. Its proposals include a re-alignment of more than 0.62 miles (1.00 km) of the River Tame, and construction of a 0.39 miles (0.63 km) long viaduct and a cutting through ancient woodland at a nature reserve at Park Hall on the edge of Birmingham.
Carbon emissions 
In 2007, the DfT commissioned a report, Estimated Carbon Impact of a New North South Line, from Booz Allen Hamilton to investigate the likely overall carbon impact associated with the construction and operation of a new rail line to either Manchester or Scotland including the extent of carbon reduction or increase from population shift to rail use, and the comparison with the case in which no new high-speed lines were built. The report concluded that there was no net carbon benefit in the foreseeable future taking only the route to Manchester. Additional carbon from building a new rail route would be larger in the first ten years at least than a model were no new rail line was built.
The High Speed Rail Command paper published in March 2010 stated that the project was likely to be roughly carbon neutral.
The Eddington Report cautioned against the common argument of modal shift from aviation to high-speed rail as a carbon-emissions benefit, since only 1.2% of UK carbon emissions are due to domestic commercial aviation, and since rail transportation energy efficiency is reduced as speed increases.
The Government White Paper Delivering a Sustainable Railway states trains that travel at a speed of 220 miles per hour (350 km/h) currently use 90% more energy than at 125 miles per hour (201 km/h); which results in carbon emissions for a London to Edinburgh journey of approximately 14 kilograms (31 lb) per passenger for high speed rail compared to 7 kilograms (15 lb) per passenger for conventional rail. Air travel uses 26 kilograms (57 lb) per passenger for the same journey. The paper questioned the value for money of high speed rail as a method of reducing carbon emissions, but noted that with a switch to carbon-free or neutral energy production the case becomes much more favourable.
The House of Commons Transport Select Committee Report in November 2011 (paragraph 77) concluded that the Government's claim that HS2 would have substantial carbon reduction benefits did not stand up to scrutiny. At best, the Select Committee found, HS2 could make a small contribution to the Government’s carbon-reduction targets. However this was dependant on the government making rapid progress on reducing carbon emissions from UK electricity generation.
HS2 Ltd stated that 21,300 dwellings could experience a noticeable increase in rail noise and 200 non-residential receptors (community, education, healthcare, and recreational/social facilities) within 300 metres (980 ft) of the preferred route have the potential to experience significant noise impacts. The Government has announced that trees planted to create a visual barrier will reduce noise pollution.
Geology and water supply 
Research presented by Dr Haydon Bailey, geological adviser to the Chiltern Society, showed that HS2 tunnelling could cause long-term damage to the chalk aquifer system responsible for water supply for the North Western Home Counties and North London.
|This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. (September 2012)|
From the beginning of the HS2 consultation period, the government has factored in several plans to compensate people who will or may be affected. Once original plans had been released in 2010, the Exceptional Hardship Scheme (EHS) was set up, however this was at the government's discretion and Phase 1 came to an end on 17 June 2010. With EHS Phase 2 running throughout 2013. Both EHS are intended to compensate homeowners who have difficulty selling their home because of the HS2 route announcement, to protecting those whose property value may be seriously affected by the 'preferred route option' and who urgently need to sell.
Exceptional Hardship Scheme criteria 
With Phase 1 applications intended to run from about August 2010 until the route was chosen in 2012 and Phase 2 throughout 2013; homeowners are/were advised to apply to the Secretary of State to buy their home, as long as all of the following criteria are met:
- Residential owner-occupier.
- Pressing need to sell. This means a change in employment location, extreme financial pressure, to accommodate enlarged family, move into sheltered accommodation, or medical condition of a family member.
- On or in 'close vicinity' of the 'preferred route' (that is mainly those who will later on be covered by statutory blight provisions).
- Have tried to sell – been on the market for at least three months with no offers within 15% of full market value (as if no HS2).
- Can demonstrate inability to sell is due to HS2.
- No knowledge of HS2 before acquiring the property.
Decisions on individual applications will by made by a panel of experts.
Public consultations 
Ever since the announcement of 'Phase 1' of HS2, the government had always had plans to create an overall 'Y shaped' line with termini in Manchester and Leeds. Since the intentions to further extend were announced an additional compensation scheme was set up. Consultations with those affect were set up throughout the end of 2012 and onto the 31st January 2013. These Consultaions were set up in order to allow homeowners to express their concerns within their local community.
The results of the consultations are not yet known, but Alison Munro, Chief Executive of HS2 Ltd, has stated that they are also looking at other options, including property bonds. The statutory blight regime would apply to any route confirmed for a new high-speed line following the public consultations, which took place between 2011 and January 2013.
The government has said it plans to introduce a new discretionary hardship scheme to ensure the housing market along the route is not unduly disrupted.
HS2 Action Alliance's alternative compensation solution for property blight was presented to DfT/HS2 Ltd and Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond, in response to the consultation on the EHS. The Alliance also presented DfT and HS2 Ltd with a pilot study on property blight.
See also 
- Rail transport in Great Britain
- High Speed 1
- Channel Tunnel
- Department for Transport
- West Coast Main Line
- High-speed rail in Europe
- High-speed rail
References, sources and notes 
- DfT (2010), page 127.
- "HS2: Phase one of high-speed rail line gets go-ahead". BBC News. 10 January 2012.
- "Go-ahead given to new railway". Department for Transport. January 2012.
- Millward, David (4 November 2010). "Other concerns relate to the benfits to Scotland Wales and the West-country. Throughout the route many country and urban campaigners have called for high speed rail rethink". The Daily Telegraph (London).
- "The Coalition: our programme for government". HM Government. May 2010. p. 31.
- DfT (2009) page 4 paragraph 5.
- Topham, Gwyn (11 April 2012). "HS2 revises down economic benefits of £33bn railway". The Guardian (London).
- Atkins (2009).
- DfT (2009) page 11 paragraph 29.
- DfT (2009), page 5 paragraph 8.
- DfT (2009), page 5 paragraph 9.
- DfT (2009), page 17 paragraph 40.
- DfT (2009), page 24 paragraph 63.
- DfT (2009), page 24 paragraph 65.
- "The case for new lines". Meeting the capacity challenge. Network Rail.
- "High-speed rail plans to be submitted to government". BBC News. 27 December 2009. Retrieved 28 December 2009.
- "High-speed rail plans announced by government". BBC News. 11 March 2010. Retrieved 11 March 2010.
- "High Speed Rail". Department for Transport. Retrieved 12 March 2010.
- "Tories would scrap Heathrow plan". BBC News. 29 September 2008.
- "Where we stand: Transport". Conservative Party. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
- "Tories say high-speed rail plans for Birmingham are flawed". Birmingham Post. 11 March 2010.
- "Ministers order re-think of high-speed rail route". TransportXtra.com (London). 28 May 2010.
- Harris, Nigel (28 July 2010). "'No business case' to divert HS2 via Heathrow, says Mawhinney'". Rail (649) (Peterborough). pp. 6–7.
- "A surprising conversion". The Economist (London). 30 December 2008.
- "Transport secretary unveils HS2 compensation plan". Railnews (Stevenage). 29 November 2010.
- "London-to-Birmingham high speed train route announced". BBC News. 20 December 2010.
- "'Redrawn' high speed rail plan unveiled". Channel 4 News. 20 December 2010.
- "High Speed Rail - Oral Answers to Questions — Education - House of Commons debates". 20 December 2010. question to the Minister by Maria Eagle, shadow secretary for Transport, 1st para.
- "High Speed Rail: Oral statement by: The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP". Department for Transport. 20 December 2010.
- "New High Speed Rail Proposals Unveiled" (Press release). Department for Transport. 20 December 2010.
- High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future Consultation, Department for Transport February 2011
- Transport Select Committee HS2 Report - House of Commons, November 2011. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- "Trust makes appeal to Europe over HS2 route". Bicester Advertiser. 30 March 2012.
- "Legal fight over high-speed rail". BBC News. 3 April 2012.
- Millward, David (2 April 2012). "Councils launch bid to block high speed rail". The Daily Telegraph (London).
- "Challenging HS2". 51M Group. 5 April 2012.
- "HS2: Government wants to face all its critics at once as delay threat mounts". Knight Frank. 3 May 2012.
- "Another challenge to HS2 launched". Out-Law.com. 12 April 2012.
- "High speed train opponents granted court hearing". "Daily Telegraph" (London). 27 July 2012.[dead link]
- R(on the application of Buckingham Borough Council and others) v Secretary of State for Transport, 481, Para 843 (UKHC (Admin) 2013).
- Walker, Angus. "433: nine out of ten - what the HS2 judgment means". Bircham Dyson Bell. Retrieved 16 March 2013.
- High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond, Supplementary Report, September 2010: Refining the Alignment of HS2's Recommended Route. Department for Transport HS2 website archive. Retrieved 21 March 2012
- HS2 Ltd (2013-04-23). "HS2 Ltd Recommends Tunnel Under Ealing and Northolt". www.hs2.org.uk. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
- Rail.co (2013-04-23). "HS2 To Recommend Ealing and Northolt Tunnel Tunnel". www.rail.co. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
- Ealing Gazette (2013-04-23). "HS2 Tunnel is a Victory for Ealing". www.ealinggazette.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
- BBC News (2013-04-23). "HS2 Scraps Ealing Bridge Demolition Plan for Tunnelling". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
- sandrafirebird (2007-02-27). "Wild in London: Perivale Wood". Wildinlondon.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2013-03-26.
- "Conservative rail review: Getting the best for passengers" (PDF). Conservative Party. Long Term Strategy, section 5.1 High Speed Rail, pp.10-11.
- "High speed rail access to Heathrow: a report by Lord Mawhinney". Department for Transport. 21 July 2010. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
- "Shadow Secretary confirms support for Heathrow Hub Plan". ARUP. 26 February 2009. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
- "Government drops Heathrow Hub option for spur on High Speed 2 route". New Civil Engineer (London). 20 December 2010. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
- "HS2 phase two initial preferred route plan and profile maps". Transport planning and infrastructure. Department for Transport. January 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- "Proposed high speed rail network North of Birmingham confirmed" (Press release). Department for Transport. 4 October 2010. Retrieved 7 October 2010.
- "Stoke-on-Trent 'ignored' under HS2 rail route plans". BBC News. 28 January 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- DfT (2009), page 16 paragraph 37.
- Savage, Michael (2 February 2010). "Adonis in all-party talks on high-speed rail link". The Independent (London). Retrieved 4 January 2010.
- "Conclusions and recommendations - conclusions and the way ahead". publications.parliament.uk. 1 November 2011. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
- Scotland, Transport (December 2011). Fast track Scotland - making the case for high speed rail connections with Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. p. V. ISBN 9781908181213.
- "Fast Track Scotland - Making the Case for High Speed Rail Connections with Scotland". Transport Scotland. Retrieved 30 January 2013.
- "High-speed rail plan for Glasgow to Edinburgh line". BBC News. 12 November 2012. Retrieved 30 January 2013.
- "Updated Economic Case for High Speed 2". Department for Transport. August 2012. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- DfT (2010), page 9.
- Arup. "Route Engineering Study Final Report: A Report for HS2, chapter 9". Retrieved 17 March 2010.
- "High Speed Rail: London to the West Midlands and Beyond. A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited. Chapter 3, p. 134". Retrieved 17 March 2010.
- Arup (20 December 2010). "Review of HS1 to HS2 Connection Final Report". Department for Transport. Section 2.1 "Structural modifications" , p.4.
- Mark Leftley (19 August 2012). "Plans for major rail projects accelerate". The Independent.
- Rail expert says Stratford should be HS2 terminus
- "High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future – Decisions and Next Steps". Department for Transport. January 2012.
- "Trains London to Newcastle | Train Timetables & Cheap Tickets". Thetrainline.com. 2010-09-22. Retrieved 2013-03-26.
- Subject: Proposal for Examining the Potential Effect of High Speed 2 on London’s Transport Network, Greater London Authority 17 May 2011
- High Speed 2 automated people mover (APM) Euston Station to St Pancras International further investigation final report Department for Transport Archives
- Transport Select Committee, 28 June 2011, House of Commons
- HS2 fuels Crossrail 2 business case
- DfT (2010), page 107.
- DfT (2012 Maps).
- DfT (2010), page 118.
- Nielsen, Beverley (29 October 2010). "Up, Up and Away - Birmingham Airport spreads its wings as powerful driver of growth and jobs". Birmingham Post Business Blog.
- DfT (2010), page 112.
- "3". High Speed Rail: London to the West Midlands and Beyond. A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited. p. 117. Retrieved 12 March 2010.
- DfT (2010), page 113.
- Network Rail. Transforming Birmingham New Street. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
- Walker, Jonathan (16 March 2010). "Birmingham City University wants £30m refund after high speed rail hits campus plan". Birmingham Post. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
- DfT (2010), page 115.
- Ikon Gallery. Curzon Square - A vision for Birminghams New Museum Quarter. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
- High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Consultation Summary, February 2011 page 22
- Millward, David (6 January 2013). "HS2 route: Manchester and Liverpool win while Sheffield loses out". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2013-01-27.
- "Route section HSM09 plan and profile sheet 2 of 2 - drawing number HS2-MSG-WCM-ZZ-DT-RT-60902". HS2 phase two initial preferred route plan and profile maps. DfT. January 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- "Route section HSM28 plan and profile sheet 5 of 9 - drawing number HS2-MSG-MA0-ZZ-DR-RT-52805". HS2 phase two initial preferred route plan and profile maps. DfT. January 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- "Council chiefs lobby ministers for TWO high speed rail stations". Manchester Evening News. 22 January 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-27.
- "Manchester Airport may be high-speed rail network hub". Manchester Evening News. 13 March 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
- "Options for Phase 2 of the High Speed rail network". 28 January 2013. p. 96.
- "HS2 to enter Manchester via tunnel under city". BBC News. 28 January 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-28.
- HS2 Drawings for Greater Manchester Tunnel HS2-MSG-MA0-ZZ-DR-RT-52805 and HS2-MSG-MA0-ZZ-DR-RT-52809
- "Tunnel vision". The Guardian. 27 May 2005. Retrieved 2013-01-30.
- "Options for Phase Two". 28 January 2013. p. 9. Retrieved 2013-02-02.
- "HS2 Cost and Risk - Infrastructure rate comparison". 28 January 2013. p. 24. Retrieved 2013-02-02.
- "Options for Phase 2 of the High Speed rail network". p. 110.
- "Options for High Speed Two Phase 2". 28 January 2013. p. 120. Retrieved 2013-01-30.
- "Options for Phase 2 of the High Speed rail network". p. 120.
- "New 'parkway' station could be built in East Midlands". Nottingham Evening Post. 3 December 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
- DfT (2010), page 127, section 8.4.
- HS2 (2010), Chapter 2, section 2.3.11, pp.40–41.
- DfT (2010), page 129.
- DfT (2010), page 130.
- "About High Speed Rail". High Speed 2 Ltd. Table 3. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
- HS2 (2010), para 4.1.23.
- Infrastructure Maintenance Depot Released December 2010
- "High-speed rail plans announced". BBC News. 11 March 2010.
- March 1, 2011 2:28 am (2011-03-01). "High Speed 2 costs less than main line upgrades". FT.com. Retrieved 2013-03-26.
- HS2 (2010), Chapter 5.2.
- HS2 (2010), page 213.
- HS2 (2010), p212, Chapter 6 section 5.2.29.
- DfT (2010), page 140.
- DfT (2010), page 138–9.
- "Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS)".
- DfT (2009), page 12 paragraph 31.
- "Train mileage for passenger operators (millions)". Office of Rail Regulation. 1 November 2011.
- DfT (2009) Figure 5: Loading levels in the 3-hour morning peak period, 2008/09, page 14.
- DfT (2009), page 5 paragraph 6.
- DfT (2009), page 12 paragraph 34.
- "HS2 isn't about reducing CO2 or the North-South divide, says DfT". TransportXtra (London). 20 January 2012.
- DfT (2009), page 4 paragraph 5.
- DfT (2009), page 17 paragraph 41.
- DfT (2009), page 18 paragraph 43.
- DfT (2009), page 16 paragraph 36.
- "High speed rail concerns 'exaggerated' says Philip Hammond - MSN News UK". News.uk.msn.com. Retrieved 2013-03-26.
- "Transport". Conservative party.
- "Labour's new HS2 fails to impress supporters or critics". RailNews (Stevenage). 1 November 2011.
- Holehouse, Matthew (20 September 2011). "Liberal Democrats Party Conference 2011: September 19 as it happened". The Daily Telegraph (London).
- "About Greengauge 21". Greengauge 21 website. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
- "About". Campaign for HSR.
- Campaign for HSR. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
- Passenger Transport Executive Group response to HS2 consultation July 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
- "NPF2 Action Programme – Action 3: Develop High Speed Rail Link to London". The Scottish Government. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- Bounds, Andrew; Tighe, Chris; Murray Brown, John (10 January 2012). "Business chiefs welcome green light for HS2". Financial Times (London). Retrieved 14 January 2012.
- Courtney, Adam (10 January 2012). "Old Oak in Shepherd's Bush set for tranformation after rail plan go-ahead". Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
- 51m membership Retrieved 3 June 2011
- Poole, Lawrence (8 December 2010). "We don't want it here, we don't want high speed rail anywhere". Buckinghamshire Examiner (Uxbridge).
- "Council to 'robustly resist' high speed rail". Uxbridge Gazette. 6 December 2010.
- "County council opposes HS2" (Press release). Warwickshire County Council. 15 December 2010.
- "Leicestershire is in - another local authority confirms it's challenging HS2" 51m website. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
- Three Rivers DC and Oxfordshire CC join 51m. Retrieved 29 August 2011[dead link]
- Bates, Matthew (15 December 2010). "City council unites in opposition to HS2". Coventry Observer.
- Camden Borough Council HS2. Retrieved 28 July 2011
- "Northamptonshire Arc". Northamptonshire County Council. High Speed Two (HS2). "the County Council objects strongly to the current published routes and insists that HS2 should only go ahead if a route can be found through consultation which minimises the potential adverse effect on local amenity, landscape and the environment"
- "High Speed 2:Staffordshire County Council set to oppose plans" (Press release). Staffordshire County Council. 18 November 2010.
- "StopHS2". "We oppose the HS2 High Speed Rail link, because the business case is based on unrealistic assumptions, the environmental impact has not been assessed, it is not green, the strategic benefits are questionable, and the money could be better spent on other things."
- <Millward,David (12 January 2012). "Tory MPs face high speed rail backlash". The Daily Telegraph (London). "Another campaigner, Penny Gaines, chairman of stop HS2. accused Mrs Gillan of "bottling out" by appearing to welcome the concessions announced by Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary."
- "About us". Amersham: HS2 Action Alliance. 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
- Woodman, Peter (19 December 2010). "High-speed rail route to be announced". The Independent (London).
- "HS2 action groups (and other HS2 active organisations)". HS2 Action Alliance. 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
- Groves, Jason (10 January 2012). "Middle England in revolt: Tory shires furious as high-speed rail link gets go-ahead". Daily Mail (London). Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- "Transport and the economy, Memorandum from Wharf Weston (TE 30)". UK Parliament. November 2010.
- "Memorandum from Bluespace Thinking Ltd (TE 07)". UK Parliament. September 2010. 7. Problems with the current forecasting and analysis methodology.
- "UKIP Say No To HS2". UK Independence Party. August 2011. Retrieved 5 August 2011.
- "Greens oppose HS2: "it wouldn't do what it says on the tin"". The Green Party. 26 February 2011. Retrieved 26 February 2011.
- "Updated Green Party proposals on HS2 route". Green Party. 22 March 2010.
- "Response to the HS2 Consultation". New Economics Foundation. 5 August 2011.
- Cole, Rob (4 February 2011). "High Speed Rail Link A 'White Elephant'". Sky News Online.
- Stokes, Chris (4 February 2011). "Research Note 82: High Speed Rail". Taxpayers' Alliance.
- "Editorial: High-speed rail is not the best way to spend £32bn". The Independent. 28 January 2013. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
- David Randall; Jonathan Owen (3 February 2013). "IoS investigation: HS2 - the hidden cost to Britain's wildlife". The Independent on Sunday. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
- "Editorial: Light green is not green enough". The Independent on Sunday. 3 February 2013. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
- "Revealed: HS2's £33bn budget already derailed before a track is laid". The Independent on Sunday. 10 March 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013.
- "About the Charter". Right Lines Charter. 2011.
- McGee, Simon; Henry, Robin (30 January 2011). "Secret rival to high-speed rail link - Government engineers have warned that the current route is flawed". The Sunday Times (London). p. 15. "Details of a "secret" alternative route for the £34 billion London to Birmingham highspeed railway line have emerged for the first time, showing the government's own engineers bitterly oppose the current plan. (....) An alternative route, which was considered and rejected behind closed doors, takes the line further west, past Heathrow, and then northwest alongside the M40 and the existing Chiltern railway line, weaving around Princes Risborough, Bicester and Banbury."
- "Secret rival to high speed rail route". County Homesearch Thames and Chilterns. 1 February 2011.
- Written evidence from Railfuture to the Transport Select Committee - May 2011. Retrieved 7 July 2011.
- "Is High Speed 2 on the Wrong Track?" (Press release). Campaign to Protect Rural England. 4 November 2010.
- "The Wildlife Trust's position statement on High Speed Rail 2 (HS2)". Warwickshire Wildlife Trust. October 2010.
- "Business call for high speed rail cash to be spent on roads". Birmingham Post. 3 December 2010.
- "HS2 route will only benefit Birmingham, says Coventry business boss". Coventry Evening Telegraph. 24 November 2010.
- Howie, Michael (7 November 2010). "National Trust anger over High Speed 2 railway". Sunday Telegraph (London).
- "High Speed Rail: Friends of the Earth's views". Friends of the Earth. October 2010.
- "Briefing on White Paper on High Speed Rail, White Paper Response". Campaign for Better Transport.
- "HS2: Good case for high-speed rail link, say MPs". BBC News. 8 November 2011.
- "Transport Committee - Tenth Report: High Speed Rail". UK Parliament. 1 November 2011.
- About HS2 - HS2 Ltd. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- HS2 Ltd seeks technical views on Environmental Impact Assessment Scope and Methodology HS2 press release - HS2 Ltd, April 2012. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- High Speed Rail: Consultation & Engagement HS2 Ltd. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- HS2 Consultation & Engagement HS2 Ltd. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future - Community forums Dept for Transport. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future - Planning forums Dept for Transport. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future - Forums Dept for Transport. Retrieved 1 July 2012
- "Historic environment Map 6: The Lee - Kingsash". High Speed 2 - Impact on the Chilterns. Chilterns AONB. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
- Walker, Peter (11 March 2010). "Beauty of Chilterns may be put at risk by fast rail link, say critics". The Guardian (London).
- Milmo, Dan (7 January 2011). "High-speed rail route to get 2m trees for shelter". The Guardian (London).
- "Appraisal of Sustainability: A Report for HS2 Non Technical Summary". Department for Transport. December 2009.
- High Speed 2(2010), page 118.
- "8 December 2009". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) (United Kingdom: House of Commons). col. 31WH—continued. 8 December 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010
- "Historic Environment Map 1:Chalfont St Giles". High Speed 2 - Impact on the Chilterns. Chilterns AONB. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
- "High Speed 2". Chilterns Conservation Board.
- "West Midlands Map 4". High Speed 2. Department for Transport. Retrieved 15 April 2010.
- "Park Hall". Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country. Retrieved 18 March 2010.
- Booz Allen Hamilton (2007)
- Booz Allen Hamilton (2007), section 1.20 , page 6.
- DfT (2010), Section 2.57, page 53.
- "The Eddington Transport Study, The case for action: Sir Rod Eddington's advice to Government". Figure 15: The case for new very High Speed Lines (HSLs) p.49 (also p.33).
- "Delivering a Sustainable Railway". Department for Transport. July 2007. Section 6.14 – 6.17, pp.62-3.
- "Concerns arising from the Geology and Hydrology of the ground underlying the High Speed (HS2) routes through the Chilterns". The Chiltern Society.
- "EHS Phase Two".
- "HS2 Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation document". Department for Transport.
- "Property and Compensation Consultation". High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. 28 January 2013.
- "Property and Compensation scheme consultation schedule". High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. 28 January 2013.
- "Alison Munro spoke at a public meeting hosted by Civic Voice in Aylesbury on 24 June". Civic Voice.
- "28 June 2010". Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) (United Kingdom: House of Commons). col. 364W. 28 June 2010
- "Alternative Compensation Solution and final response to EHS". HS2 Action Alliance.
- Booz Allen Hamilton (2007). "Estimated Carbon Impact of a New North South Line". Department for Transport.
- Atkins (2009). "High Speed Line Study: Summary Report". Department for Transport. Retrieved 13 March 2010.[dead link]
- DfT (2009): Department for Transport (2009). Britains Transport Infrastructure High Speed Two (PDF). Department for Transport. ISBN 978-1-906581-80-0. Retrieved 13 March 2010.
- DfT (2010): Department for Transport (11 March 2010). High Speed Rail - Command Paper. The Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0-10-178272-2. Retrieved 13 March 2010.
- HS2 (2010): High Speed Two Ltd (11 March 2010). "High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond: A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited". Department for Transport. Retrieved 16 March 2010.
- HS2 (2012 Maps): High Speed Two Ltd (10 January 2012). "HS2 revised line of route maps". Department for Transport. Retrieved 30 October 012.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to: High Speed 2|
- "High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd". www.hs2.org.uk. High Speed Two Ltd.
- High Speed Two Ltd (11 March 2010). "High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond: A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited". www.dft.gov.uk. Department for Transport - Deposited in National Archives.
- Preston, John (October 2009). "The Case for High Speed Rail:- A review of recent evidence". RAC Foundation.
- "High speed rail: In your back yard?". BBC News. 12 March 2010. "Details have been announced of the preferred route for a high-speed rail link between Birmingham and London"
- "High Speed Rail". Department for Transport. "This section contains information on proposals for high speed rail and the work of the company High Speed Two Ltd"
- "High Speed 2 - Caring for the Chilterns, The Chilterns AONB". The Chilterns Conservation Board.
- "Stop HS2".
- "The route of the HS2 superimposed onto maps from the Ordnance Survey, OpenStreetMap, Google and Bing".