Government announces independent review into HS2 programme

[irish_rail]

I honestly think that cancelling HS2 would be the most humiliating decision this country has ever made. They've spent all if this money (albeit a very fishy amount) for a line that will bring huge benefits to the whole country... And the government wants it cancelled. This is ridiculous. Absolute rubbish.

There's two reasons I won't vote in the future (if they happen): dropping Brexit, and cancelling HS2.

Spoiler

And don't even think about making an unnecessary comment about Brexit 'ruining the country' or High Speed 2 being 'pointless'.

Except the awful refurbishment where SC only put the wrinkly covers over the old Scotrail moquette.

I'm pretty sure Brexit is a bigger national embarrassment than HS2 cancellation will ever be.

 

[class26]

The bottom line is the bottom line - post Brexit, the current HS2 plans are unaffordable, so the project needs to be drastically pruned, if not cancelled.

But we were told we would have MORE money post brexit !

 

[anme]

The bottom line is the bottom line - post Brexit, the current HS2 plans are unaffordable, so the project needs to be drastically pruned, if not cancelled.

Thanks for posting, that's very interesting. I would love to know more. Please could you post some figures, just so I can prove this point to my friends when I tell them? Thanks!

 

[anme]

Hey I just found out something shocking. Did you know that Kilsby Tunnel on the London and Birmingham Railway (now the west cost main line) went THREE TIMES OVER BUDGET?!

Building this tunnel was a huge mistake that we still regret now. Why hasn't it been closed to teach those who want to build new things a lesson?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Honestly couldn’t be happier. I adore high speed rail and wish the UK would get on with it and build a nationwide system but HS2 was and is in my opinion the wrong design for the UK

What do you feel is wrong with the design and how would you do it differently?

 

[trebor79]

Hey I just found out something shocking. Did you know that Kilsby Tunnel on the London and Birmingham Railway (now the west cost main line) went THREE TIMES OVER BUDGET?!

Building this tunnel was a huge mistake that we still regret now. Why hasn't it been closed to teach those who want to build new things a lesson?

Kilsby Tunnel was built by private enterprise with private money.
HS2 is being built with public money.

Reports today that as long ago as 2016 those running the company and the government knew it was going to be late and hugely over budget, and that project therefore didn't make sense on a cost benefit analysis. They continued to say publically that it would be on time and on budget.
Sorry, but any remaining benefit of the doubt I had for the project is hugely eroded by this revelation. If it's such a good deal, why the need to lie about the costs and benefits?
And they still continue to pedal nonsense such as the journey time from "Nottingham" being reduced to just over an hour. That's only true if you redefine "Nottingham" as "a bit of disused railway land near Toton". It'll actually take longer to get between Nottingham and London if going via HS2 die to the transfer to and from "East Midlands Hub".

It's a vanity project and a gravy train. Nothing more. Southern WCML relief and capacity increases could and should be provided much more cheaply, along with comprehensive electrification and infrastructure improvements across the north.

 

[anme]

Kilsby Tunnel was built by private enterprise with private money.
HS2 is being built with public money.

You are missing the point. It was THREE TIMES OVER BUDGET! Why did the promoters lie?! Close it now!

Anyway, if you're saying that only privately funded projects are allowed to go over budget, you're saying that there can never be a publicly funded project of any sort again. Is that what you want?

Southern WCML relief and capacity increases could and should be provided much more cheaply.

How?

(I admit we're going to waste some money replacing Kilsby Tunnel, but a principle is a principle, right?)

 

[quantinghome]

Reports today that as long ago as 2016 those running the company and the government knew it was going to be late and hugely over budget, and that project therefore didn't make sense on a cost benefit analysis. They continued to say publically that it would be on time and on budget.
Sorry, but any remaining benefit of the doubt I had for the project is hugely eroded by this revelation. If it's such a good deal, why the need to lie about the costs and benefits?

I think you'll find that these 'revelations' were already in the public domain; they're just being reheated now by the anti-HS2 campaign for their own ends.

The same issues of cost have affected many other public infrastructure projects over the years. Crossrail in particular comes to mind, and large road projects such as the A14 have seen similar increases. Prior to construction starting on Crossrail there were all sorts of stories circulating about 'massive' cost increases. But guess what, it's still being built, because ultimately the country still needs the infrastructure even if in an ideal world we would be able to do civil engineering cheaper.

If the 'it costs too much' argument leads to HS2 being cancelled then we can basically give up on any idea of provided modern transport infrastructure in this country. I'm tired of us trying to make do and mend with pre-Victorian relics.

And they still continue to pedal nonsense such as the journey time from "Nottingham" being reduced to just over an hour. That's only true if you redefine "Nottingham" as "a bit of disused railway land near Toton". It'll actually take longer to get between Nottingham and London if going via HS2 die to the transfer to and from "East Midlands Hub".

I guess it depends which bit of Nottingham you're heading for. The current station is not ideally situated for many people. And you're far too focussed on the London connection. HS2 will massively improve journey times to Nottingham from the North. Leeds-Nottingham will drop fromt he best part of 2 hours to about half an hour. That's a huge improvement.

It's a vanity project and a gravy train. Nothing more.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to your opinion being correct.

Southern WCML relief and capacity increases could and should be provided much more cheaply, along with comprehensive electrification and infrastructure improvements across the north.

Genuinely interested to hear how you would do this without building new tracks.

 

[trebor79]

You are missing the point. It was THREE TIMES OVER BUDGET! Why did the promoters lie?! Close it now!

.
No, you're missing the point. If a private enterprise goes over budget then that's of no particular interest to taxpayers, even if they lie about spending their own money.
If a taxpayer funded project is massively over budget, and they project company and government lie about the facts for at least 3 years, that's a different ball game.

Anyway, if you're saying that only privately funded projects are allowed to go over budget, you're saying that there can never be a publicly funded project of any sort again. Is that what you want?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that I further doubt the raison d'etre for HS2 if HS2 and the government feel that they need to lie about the true costs and cost benefit ratio for years on end. They could have been honest from the get go and said "well it's going to be at least £x billion over budget, and there's a further contingency of £y billion but here's what we are doing to minimise it. The coet benefit ratio for the original scheme doesn't make sense any more, so we've rescoped to keep the project sensible".
That would have been honest and I could support such a scheme, even if over budget.
They chose not to do that. They chose to lie. For years. That makes me highly suspicious of them, anything they say about the project, and of the project itself.

 

[trebor79]

Genuinely interested to hear how you would do this without building new tracks.

Of course you need to build new tracks. Those tracks don't have to be specified for 250mph operation. A slower railway leads to cheaper civil engineering, reduced land take as curves can be sharper, less energy consumption when in operation and very probably less of a need to dig expensive tunnels and cuttings for no reason other than noise abatement.

 

[anme]

.
No, you're missing the point. If a private enterprise goes over budget then that's of no particular interest to taxpayers, even if they lie about spending their own money.
If a taxpayer funded project is massively over budget, and they project company and government lie about the facts for at least 3 years, that's a different ball game.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that I further doubt the raison d'etre for HS2 if HS2 and the government feel that they need to lie about the true costs and cost benefit ratio for years on end. They could have been honest from the get go and said "well it's going to be at least £x billion over budget, and there's a further contingency of £y billion but here's what we are doing to minimise it. The coet benefit ratio for the original scheme doesn't make sense any more, so we've rescoped to keep the project sensible".
That would have been honest and I could support such a scheme, even if over budget.
They chose not to do that. They chose to lie. For years. That makes me highly suspicious of them, anything they say about the project, and of the project itself.

I don't really agree with your interpretation of events.

Sadly you've chosen not to back up the more interesting of your claims: "Southern WCML relief and capacity increases could and should be provided much more cheaply".

Please justify this claim as a matter of extreme urgency.

 

[trebor79]

I don't really agree with your interpretation of events.

That's fine. We don't have to agree, it's a discussion forum

Sadly you've chosen not to back up the more interesting of your claims: "Southern WCML relief and capacity increases could and should be provided much more cheaply".

Please justify this claim as a matter of extreme urgency.

In brief, it's doesn't have to be a 250mph railway with all of the attendant extra costs in civil engineering, land take, tunnelling, energy use during operation, high speed stock etc.
And before you glibly say a slower railway wouldn't be any cheaper, it would. Otherwise reopenings such as the line to Galashields (which needed new bridges etc and a lot of formation rebuilding so is almost new build given 50 or so years of dereliction post closure) would have come with similar per mile costs to HS2

 

[absolutelymilk]

Otherwise reopenings such as the line to Galashields (which needed new bridges etc and a lot of formation rebuilding so is almost new build given 50 or so years of dereliction post closure) would have come with similar per mile costs to HS2

Is it possible that land and building costs are higher in Central London than in Galashields?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A slower railway would be cheaper - I personally believe 300km/h is the soft spot, this being pretty much the European standard.

 

[anme]

That's fine. We don't have to agree, it's a discussion forum



In brief, it's doesn't have to be a 250mph railway with all of the attendant extra costs in civil engineering, land take, tunnelling, energy use during operation, high speed stock etc.
And before you glibly say a slower railway wouldn't be any cheaper, it would. Otherwise reopenings such as the line to Galashields (which needed new bridges etc and a lot of formation rebuilding so is almost new build given 50 or so years of dereliction post closure) would have come with similar per mile costs to HS2

Are you seriously proposing that a major new main line is built to the same standard as a minor re-opening. I'm afraid you are going to have to provide detailed facts and figures before your claim can be taken seriously.

 

[trebor79]

Are you seriously proposing that a major new main line is built to the same standard as a minor re-opening. I'm afraid you are going to have to provide detailed facts and figures before your claim can be taken seriously.

<sigh>
No. I'm suggesting that if it were built to a lower design speed than that currently proposed, it will be cheaper to buold and operate than the currently proposed scheme. I used the Galashiels reopening as an example that a lower specification = lower cost, not as an example of the standard to which a southern WCML relief line should be built.

 

[quantinghome]

Of course you need to build new tracks. Those tracks don't have to be specified for 250mph operation. A slower railway leads to cheaper civil engineering, reduced land take as curves can be sharper, less energy consumption when in operation and very probably less of a need to dig expensive tunnels and cuttings for no reason other than noise abatement.

I agree we should be looking at reducing the design speed - 250mph I don't think will ever be needed and produces comparatively little time saving. I agree there is some scope for cost saving, BUT it's not going to be that large a cost saving. The urban parts of the scheme are the most expensive, and they are not the high speed parts. The entire HS2 scheme within the M25 would basically be unchanged, and the same goes for the approaches into Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

I'm struggling to see how you would reduce land take by having tighter curves.

Energy consumption in operation is a marginal cost and not much of an environmental issue given how much electricity supply is coming from renewables nowadays.

HS1 also has large cuttings and tunnels for noise abatement and that's a 300kph railway (and not even that over some stretches).

So we're left with making some useful but not massive cost savings by reducing speed of HS2. However, replacing HS2 with a new route would be detrimental to costs and timescale. Planning, consultation and legislation would need to be restarted, taking years, and the effects of construction inflation (which is generally higher than retail inflation) will result in any replacement scheme costing a lot more.

 

[anme]

<sigh>
No. I'm suggesting that if it were built to a lower design speed than that currently proposed, it will be cheaper to buold and operate than the currently proposed scheme. I used the Galashiels reopening as an example that a lower specification = lower cost, not as an example of the standard to which a southern WCML relief line should be built.

So if we made the southern section of HS2 a bit slower and saved maybe a couple of percent on the budget, you would support it?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

People are happy to pay the higher fares on HS1, even when they have a 'classic' station on their doorstep.

I travel to my parents regularly in East Kent and for the sake of a few extra quid, it is worth it for me to use HS1 along with the fringe extras it offers

I can't comment on HS2 as have no reason to use it

 

[class26]

The Uk has been woeful since the last war at infrastructure spending, finding all kinds of reasons not to, whether it be electrification or high speed rail etc. if we had got on with it at the same time as the French then it would not have cost anything like 100 billion, if indeed that is the final cost. Decades of delay and obfuscation have resulted in now playing catch up which is expensive but that doesn`t mean it shouldn`t be done. Failure to build HS2 will condemn the UK to even poorer productivity than we presently have in the future.

 

[Doomotron]

I'm pretty sure Brexit is a bigger national embarrassment than HS2 cancellation will ever be.

I see you didn't see the spoiler. You know, the one where I asked people not to make an unnecessary anti-Brexit or anti-HS2 comment.

 

[AM9]

With all these figures being used by some to destroy the case for HS2 (in their own minds at least), I have tried to find the real bid figures and what exactly they included, e.g. the phase (i.e. which part of the total was covered), was it infrastructure and/or rolling stock, the contingency and most importantly, the economic conditions. So far the only figures that I can find are the current projected cost i.e. c. £56Bn and various fantasy figures of overspend, (£100Bn is becoming a standard lie like it is fact and I've even heard £200Bn floated) usually coupled with indignation that it would only get rich businessmen to Birmingham 15 minutes quicker.
Does anybody here know where official verifiable historical figures are available?

 

[HSTEd]

And they still continue to pedal nonsense such as the journey time from "Nottingham" being reduced to just over an hour. That's only true if you redefine "Nottingham" as "a bit of disused railway land near Toton". It'll actually take longer to get between Nottingham and London if going via HS2 die to the transfer to and from "East Midlands Hub".

Really?
That would imply the entire population of Nottingham lives in an arcology that has appeared adjacent to Nottingham Midland station?
I'm afraid that Toton will crush the existing station for a large fraction of Nottinghams population - anyone near the ring road will go there, as will anyone near the tram line. And anyone in south-western Nottingham.

Toton is hardly a station in a beet field....

NET out to Toton Lane is about 31 minutes, so call it 32 to the HS2 station......
If the HS2 journey time is more than 32 minutes shorter than the existing journey time, anyone on the tram will go to Toton as it will be faster.

The existing travel time is 1hr40
Toton-London is often projected at roughly 52 minutes.

So yes, everyone on the tram would be better off riding to Toton.

 

[sharpley]

Really?
That would imply the entire population of Nottingham lives in an arcology that has appeared adjacent to Nottingham Midland station?
I'm afraid that Toton will crush the existing station for a large fraction of Nottinghams population - anyone near the ring road will go there, as will anyone near the tram line. And anyone in south-western Nottingham.

Toton is hardly a station in a beet field....

NET out to Toton Lane is about 31 minutes, so call it 32 to the HS2 station......
If the HS2 journey time is more than 32 minutes shorter than the existing journey time, anyone on the tram will go to Toton as it will be faster.

The existing travel time is 1hr40
Toton-London is often projected at roughly 52 minutes.

So yes, everyone on the tram would be better off riding to Toton.

I said earlier in this thread that the station should have just been called Nottingham rather than East Midlands Hub. Little benefit to Derby once you add a train journey from there to Toton (which won't be as frequent as a tram service either), and its no use whatsoever to Leicester. Will people want to take a high speed train which stops in the suburbs, and you have to use a local tram to complete your journey to the city centre to save 10 minutes. Only real benefit time-wise will be if you live in south Nottingham or local enough to drive to the station.

 

[HSTEd]

Will people want to take a high speed train which stops in the suburbs, and you have to use a local tram to complete your journey to the city centre to save 10 minutes. Only real benefit time-wise will be if you live in south Nottingham or local enough to drive to the station.

As opposed to taking a train that stops in the city centre, just to use a local tram to complete your journey?

And quite a lot of people are close enough to drive to the station, especially thanks to the ring road.

 

[jfowkes]

I expect Toton to be very popular for journeys to/from the North. Currently the services from Derby, Nottingham and Leicester north of Sheffield are fairly slow and poor.

For journeys to London, it's highly dependent on exactly where you are starting your journey from (i.e. home/work) and your options for reaching Toton compared to the existing stations. Even so, I would expect Toton to move a sizeable amount of London footfall off the classic Nottingham services and a smaller amount from Derby, which is a good thing for capacity on the MML, especially for the people of Leicester.

 

[quantinghome]

I expect Toton to be very popular for journeys to/from the North. Currently the services from Derby, Nottingham and Leicester north of Sheffield are fairly slow and poor.

Indeed. It's quite strange to hear complaints that HS2 is only about getting to London faster, and then hear further complaints that it doesn't get to London faster, while completely ignoring massive improvements made to non-London journeys.

 

[Yossarian22]

What do you feel is wrong with the design and how would you do it differently?

Personally, I feel its the wrong type of high-speed rail design. Despite the media put out there that HS2 was "inspired by the Shinkansen" it seems like they were more inspired by the European systems than the Japanese one. The physical and human geography of the UK is more similar to Japan than European countries being a long thin island with drawn-out corridors of towns and cities rather than the more square countries like France, Germany, and Spain with individual clusters of towns and cities. The design of HS2 is brilliant if you want flat out speed and are looking to replicate the AVE, TGV or ICE but I don't that is the way to go.
I would much rather see a system based on the Tokaido Shinkansen running at a lower 175/200 mph rather than 200+mph with more intermediate stops and high frequency. The average distance as the crow flies between stations on the Tokaido Shinkansen is around 25/45km with two services an hour (Kodama) stopping at all stops.

 

[mmh]

Land purchase being over the final budget, doesn't mean that it will be overall.

For instance some homes were brought early and rented out, so that income would reduce the final cost.

Some homes could have been brought so as to facilitate the construction (read be too noisy during construction), but aren't needed long term, as such can be sold on. Again reducing the final costs.

Do you have a source to back this up? It feels unlikely to me that HS2 has diversified into property speculation.

Even then, assuming a doubling of property purchase costs from £2.5bn to £5bn, that doesn't mean that there's not cost savings (from the contingency budget) which could result in the scheme coming in on budget.

Of course, if there's scope to do so, it could also be possible to sell surplus land or building rights over land to gain back more money.

Anyway such stories need to be read in the context of the £7bn of spend to date. In that if the extra between the two is for all the other stuff, then there's been quite a lot done for ~£2bn.

Which is? There's not a single station, tunnel, bridge, piece of track to show for it yet. After spending 30% of the budget (if, indeed, that figure is true!)

 

[mmh]

There's no need for yet another thread to be derailed with off-topic Brexit discussion, there's a long-running thread specifically for that: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/eu-referendum-the-result-and-aftermath.132044/