Would HS2 have saved money by bringing in a company like SNCF to build the line to their pre-existing designs?

[eldomtom2]

A common opinion I've seen online is that HS2 wasted money by "doing things from scratch" and that a company like SNCF should have been brought in to build the line to their pre-existing designs. Would this actually have saved money?

 

[Krokodil]

It might have helped if the team that got HS1 done were involved.

 

[zwk500]

Which elements of LGV standard design could have been used?
AIUI the line was designed to align with the interoperability standards except where compatibility with the British classic network forced deviation (e.g. platform height).

 

[stuu]

A common opinion I've seen online is that HS2 wasted money by "doing things from scratch" and that a company like SNCF should have been brought in to build the line to their pre-existing designs. Would this actually have saved money?

Pre-existing designs for what? A lot of the avoidable expenses has been on the landscaping and green tunnels etc. Add in the fact that building anything here seems to cost at least double what it does anywhere else and it's always going to cost a fortune.

Slightly off-topic, but something dramatic happened to UK costs between the early 2000s and now. Roads were broadly similar to France and Germany, phase 1 of the CTRL was too. Now they are massively higher

 

[zwk500]

Pre-existing designs for what? A lot of the avoidable expenses has been on the landscaping and green tunnels etc. Add in the fact that building anything here seems to cost at least double what it does anywhere else and it's always going to cost a fortune.

Slightly off-topic, but something dramatic happened to UK costs between the early 2000s and now. Roads were broadly similar to France and Germany, phase 1 of the CTRL was too. Now they are massively higher

On these points, is this accurate? The French ended up with LGV Est unfinished and several other LGVs cancelled outright due to spiralling costs at about the same time as HS2s costs were climbing dramatically, and Germany has consistently had major infrastructure projects like Stuttgart 21 and Berlin-Brandenberg Airport blow their budgets and timescales sky-high.

 

[Snow1964]

It is very difficult to know, but as most of the extra cost was in environmental measures and extra tunnels, it could be argued (with hindsight) this wasn't properly considered and costed in early stages.

What they might have done better is in very early stages negotiated directly with everyone on the route and close by. Paid a fixed compensation in advance to each in return for buying the land and altered view in return for no planning objections. Although it might sound like borderline bribes it might have been lot cheaper (but we will not know) than extra years of consultants and design changes and expensive contract variations.

Probably ought to have made phase 2a (to south of Crewe) and East Midlands spur part of the core route. Instead we have rather useless (for its cost) core section and Old Oak-Euston deferred to some mystery date.

 

[RT4038]

What they might have done better is in very early stages negotiated directly with everyone on the route and close by. Paid a fixed compensation in advance to each in return for buying the land and altered view in return for no planning objections. Although it might sound like borderline bribes it might have been lot cheaper (but we will not know) than extra years of consultants and design changes and expensive contract variations.

Why would negotiating directly with everyone on the route have been an easier or faster? Paying a fixed compensation does not sound like negotiating to me. Obviously if you were just going to pay everyone whatever they asked (and still assuming that there would have been none who would not sell voluntarily at any price)- 'a billion for my view please' - how would that be cheaper?

 

[mrcheek]

I refer you to the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point.

Being built by EDF (a French company) using existing designs. To save money.

The budget has doubled. As has the time scale.

 

[Xavi]

No.

 

[mike57]

It is very difficult to know, but as most of the extra cost was in environmental measures and extra tunnels, it could be argued (with hindsight) this wasn't properly considered and costed in early stages.

Which brings into question the whole choice of route and design.

~200mph/320kph and a route which is further east roughly following the M1 might have delivered a better result, because the assumptions made about the current route didn't survive contact with the public enquiries, and we ended up with more tunnels for example.

Contractual arrangements are also an issue, if you go 'fixed price' then anytime even something small changes claims for extra costs come in, with all the associated administration and documentation. It would be interesting to see how much of the cost actually has gone into each activity, materials and front line work, engineering and design, and project management

 

[stuu]

On these points, is this accurate? The French ended up with LGV Est unfinished and several other LGVs cancelled outright due to spiralling costs at about the same time as HS2s costs were climbing dramatically, and Germany has consistently had major infrastructure projects like Stuttgart 21 and Berlin-Brandenberg Airport blow their budgets and timescales sky-high.

This is a pet peeve of mine, something I have spent far too much time looking into, but yes, it is true. There are all sorts of sources on the internet showing it, including Hs2's own benchmarking. That was done in 2016, before a lot of the cost increases, so it's worse now

CTRL section 1 cost £26m per km (2002 prices) including several tunnels and the Medway viaduct, Phase 2a of HS2 was estimated at £100m+ (2016 prices), for a line with no major viaducts or tunnels. That's a lot more than the inflation rate

 

[mike57]

CTRL section 1 cost £26m per km (2002 prices) including several tunnels and the Medway viaduct, Phase 2a of HS2 was estimated at £100m+ (2016 prices)

£26m in 2002 equates to about £36m in 2016 allowing for inflation, so even before the later increases we are at around 2.5 times the rate of inflation. It really needs some proper analysis to see what has happened, because somewhere a lot of money seems to be disappearing into a black hole. (puts cynical hat on... gone to find the money 'lost' by the Post Office IT system).

That £100m has nearly doubled again as well into todays costs which appear to be about £200m/km, whereas inflation would indicate a roughly 35% increase. Overall we are looking at an eighfold increase in cost when inflation over the same period would have doubled it.

 

[SynthD]

No, the customer is at fault. Some contractors may have pushed back more or less, but I don't think it would make any difference.

 

[coppercapped]

I would suggest that cost overruns are pre-programmed if a free-standing, government-funded company is set up to build infrastructure such as HS2 and if this company has no financial interest in the resulting operation. As a result there is no pressure whatsoever to investigate alternatives in its technical specification or route or construction scheduling. To put it another way the builders have no skin in the (operating) game.

Similarities are to be seen with the Channel Tunnel. It was built by a consortium of civil engineering companies and then handed over to Eurotunnel. To justify the increasing costs predictions of passenger numbers became unreal. A better solution would have been to set up Eurotunnel first and let the operator decide what was needed.

Of course with the present structure of the railways such an alternative form for HS2 is unlikely, but one should consider how a modern descendant of the London Midland and Scottish Railway would have approached the perceived problems on the West Coast Main Line. Would it have been built as presently proposed, or would it have been built incrementally, for example by building a Crewe by-pass or a Rugby - Birmingham cut-off first? Or would it have solved the issue of (apparently) too many passengers by simply putting the price up so supply and demand balanced?

 

[eldomtom2]

Of course with the present structure of the railways such an alternative form for HS2 is unlikely, but one should consider how a modern descendant of the London Midland and Scottish Railway would have approached the perceived problems on the West Coast Main Line. Would it have been built as presently proposed, or would it have been built incrementally, for example by building a Crewe by-pass or a Rugby - Birmingham cut-off first? Or would it have solved the issue of (apparently) too many passengers by simply putting the price up so supply and demand balanced?

Almost certainly whatever it would have been, if it involved capital investment it would have tried to extract as much cash possible from the government to pay for it.

 

[RT4038]

Almost certainly whatever it would have been, if it involved capital investment it would have tried to extract as much cash possible from the government to pay for it.

and get the maximum value out of whatever of its own capital it did put in.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I refer you to the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point.

Being built by EDF (a French company) using existing designs. To save money.

The budget has doubled. As has the time scale.

Oh there doing quite well at Hinkley compared to its sister plant at Flamanville only five times over budget and nine years late.

 

[coppercapped]

and get the maximum value out of whatever of its own capital it did put in.

Exactly.

 

[swt_passenger]

Which brings into question the whole choice of route and design.

~200mph/320kph and a route which is further east roughly following the M1 might have delivered a better result, because the assumptions made about the current route didn't survive contact with the public enquiries, and we ended up with more tunnels for example.

“Following the M1”, (and presumably the M6 if still going to the north west), has also been explained as unbuildable many times. You’d still need all the tunnels to get under the various population centres that route.

 

[mike57]

You’d still need all the tunnels to get under the various population centres that route.

Yes but we still have a lot of tunnels on the current route, at least those tunnels under population centres might have enabled maybe one or two intermediate stations along the route to serve them. And I dont mean literally following, just more easterly, and to the east of the current WCML, and yes splitting much like the M1 into the M6 to give a route to the Birmingham and the North West and another towards the East Midlands and Sheffield.

To be fair it is now all crayonista, but bearing in mind how badly flawed the cost estimates have turned out I would also suspect the route selection and speed selection process was equally flawed, as after all they are all linked.

What we have ended up with, at least for the foreseeable future, OOC to Curzon Street just doesn't seem useful. Take a typical journey from the West Midlands, are people really going to travel from thier home station change from New St to Curzon Street and then end up at OOC with another change to get into London. To be honest the whole thing looks like a total disaster, but thats not the OPs original topic

To get back on topic I am not sure that bringing in a company to do all the design and build would have made any difference, as I think the issues were already embedded by that point. The planning and approval system needs streamlining as well for national infrastructure project.

 

[eldomtom2]

and get the maximum value out of whatever of its own capital it did put in.

Exactly.

I am not entirely sure what your point is, since my point is that any private company would probably try to minimise the amount of its own capital put into the project.