HS2 spiralling costs

On the plus side, Manchester Mayor Burnham is generating support for some kind of additional rail link Manchester <–> Birmingham. This is on the basis that something is better than

Fingers crossed the gov don’t sell off the already purchased land north of Birmingham. HS2 never made any sense if it didn’t go north of Brum.

Fingers crossed the gov don’t sell off the already purchased land north of Birmingham.

You’ll be totally unsurprised to hear it’s already underway as part of their scorched earth policy before they’re booted out

Government WILL sell HS2 land despite Andy Burnham’s plan for a new line on it

I’m sure the land will end up in the hands of various Tory donors, who’ll pay peanuts for it

And Starmer has already ruled out reviving the scheme:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67924577

Difficult to see how he could commit to it, given the salting of the earth thats presently underway

The whole thing is an utter shambles! If it wasn’t from its conception, then in its present state its just a complete white elephant

HS2 never made any sense if it didn’t go north of Brum.

HS2 didnt make any sense the moment it stopped connecting with HS1. At that point the London > Birmingham stretch should have been canned and a new (probably not called HS2) plan for Brimingham > north should have been devised.

HS2 didnt make any sense the moment it stopped connecting with HS1. At that point the London > Birmingham stretch should have been canned and a new (probably not called HS2) plan for Brimingham > north should have been devised.

None of it works if it doesn’t connect to London.
Northern Powerhouse Rail worked well – at the initial stage when it would connect various Northern cities with Leeds and Manchester where the two spurs of HS2 would terminate (with options to extend up to Scotland and, from Manchester, across into North Wales).

Then Leeds got binned so NPR instantly lost a significant chunk of its Benefit:Cost Ratio (and there’s a separate argument about why BCR is a terrible means of measuring massive and ultra-long-scale infrastructure projects anyway…).
Then Manchester got binned so NPR simply doesn’t work in any meaningful sense at all other than the north desperately needs rail investment and improvement which is now being done piecemeal.

Connection of HS2 to Euston was the least worst option given that connection to St Pancras and HS1 was near impossible. Termination at Old Oak Common is a disaster because it’ll overwhelm the already-at-capacity Elizabeth Line.

Whole thing has been an absolute shitshow overseen by a succession of Transport Ministers who have never cared in the slightest about anything other than cars

In what will come as a complete shock to absolutely no-one, it turns out that it costs more to cancel a scheme and end up with nothing than it does to proceed with the scheme and have a functional railway at the end of it all.

Parliamentary Accounts Committee verdict on HS2

Scheme now very poor value for money after Northern leg cancellation, says @CommonsPAC https://t.co/h5qTe0vmRA pic.twitter.com/9VVOWbDmnH

— Transport Intelligence (@TransportXtra) February 8, 2024

apparently hs2 “may” drop brum -> manc capacity by “up to 17%”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go

this seems on the face of it like a huge number – is it feasable or made up for a (political?) point? I’d imagine there’s a bunch of trains between the two that wouldn’t be replaced with hs2 trains (local runs etc) – and whilst the seat density of existing and new rolling stock may differ a little – 17% is a huge drop unless the trains are physically shorter?

Oh, FFS.

Reducing capacity to Manchester.

Slow hand clap.

Freight to be reduced on existing lines as well.

Just came to post that very same thing!

Cancelling the northern leg means the capacity on the southern leg has to be reduced.

The Tories properly completely screwed everything they touched didn’t they?

Especially as the reasons that costs spiraled was due to over-specification to beat the foreigners, protection of special interests in Tory voting seats, and repeated delays for political reasons.

HS2 should have been started in the “north” and morphed into a general improvement in public and freight transport routes.

Mate in London can walk to several National Rail stations in minutes with more a bit further out. I can’t find many more in the entire county, let alone alone walk to them

As well as the line going from a part of London nobody can find to a part of Birmingham nobody wants to be at, there’s a second spur that’s going to join the West Coast Main Line north of Lichfield, on the edge of Cannock Chase. And I’ve heard that because the trains will be non-tilting they will have to go slower than the current Pendolinos once they’ve joined the old bit.

Already seen suspiciously similiar FB posts blaming Labour for this, of course.

HS2 should have been started in the “north”

If you build a linear road/railway/metro etc in phases, you start by building the busy end, not the quiet end.

What if the busiest stretch already has an effective, fast and frequent service, whereas the less busy stretch is less busy because it’s a slow, disjointed nightmare. Which would you upgrade first then?

Which would you upgrade first then?

It’s not an upgrade. It’s a whole new line and for all of it to work effectively, all of it needs to be built.

It’s like arguing which side of the river you build a bridge from – it usually helps if you build it from the side with best access to logistics but it still all needs building.

As well as the line going from a part of London nobody can find

I thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?

I thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?

In theory yes but Sunak decided not to fund it so it will only go ahead if the private sector decides to pay for it.

The main terminal whilst that was being decided was going to be Old Oak Common.

I thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?

That was the idea.
The plan was to completely redevelop Euston – which was already in dire need of restoration anyway. HS2 would come in underground from Old Oak Common to an underground terminal with 11 platforms. 10 in use and one as “spare” / contingency.

Upstairs would be the existing WCML station but done up.

That then got downgraded to ten platforms which means you have zero extra capacity and can’t run as many trains.

Then it got re-scoped again (each re-scope taking a year of design work, costing another £100m and causing huge delays and cost over runs in general…) and the terminal station plan got binned off for a through station at OOK and relying on the already at-capacity Elizabeth Line to get passengers into London. Which is sort of like landing 4 jumbo jets an hour at Stansted and then relying on 2 coaches to get everyone to London, it was only ever going to be a huge bottleneck.

They had similar arguments about Manchester. Wanted an underground terminus station at Piccadilly (yet another place in dire need of renovation), then offered a surface station, then finally said bollocks to it, you’re not getting HS2 at all.

HS2 should have been started in the “north”

If you build a linear road/railway/metro etc in phases, you start by building the busy end, not the quiet end.

It’s not an upgrade. It’s a whole new line and for all of it to work effectively, all of it needs to be built.

It’s like arguing which side of the river you build a bridge from – it usually helps if you build it from the side with best access to logistics but it still all needs building.

It isn’t about about where you stack your bricks by convention, it’s about the project’s principles. It must: stand the test of time; be the right strategic answer; be integrated with existing and future transport services (David Higgins (2014))

In 2013 Prof. Paul Salveson from the University of Huddersfield said, “I would like to see high-speed rail serving the north. But we can get much more for the same (or less) money through a revised scheme which provides much improved connectivity across the north rather than just the main centres.”

When HS2 was reviewed by David Higgins in 2014 for the Government, he identified a lack of connectivity in the north as one of the two main issues that HS2 could address and proposed accelerating phase 2 (Birmingham northward) and a new hub at Crewe

Unfortunately it was a rushed mess by the Blair-Brown Government, badly tweaked by later Conservative governments

Well, Andy Burnham is angling for building another line Birmingham – Manchester anyway. This is not a bad idea as it would give lots of extra capacity and capitalise on the abandoned section of HS2. Would be expensive, given the UK’s fuckwittery in realising large projects.

Maybe something more realistic is to focus on upgrading the existing network – welded rail everywhere, automatic signalling and modern stations (platforms).

Whichever option, we need to stick with it and realise there are pros and cons, no matter what.

Unfortunately it was a rushed mess by the Blair-Brown Government

It’s the BLAIR card!

FFS not a sod was turned under Labour, this sits squarely with the Tories and their 14 years of chaos and 7 SoS for Transport.

Well, Andy Burnham is angling for building another line Birmingham – Manchester anyway. This is not a bad idea as it would give lots of extra capacity and capitalise on the abandoned section of HS2.

Surely given the amount of planning, design & property purchased it would be just as cheap to plough on with HS2 as already devised, maybe with a slower speed designation to reduce the costs but build the station shells so the line & stations can be easily extended further north in the future.

piemonster
Full Member

I thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?

Yeah but the thing is, literally everything at the euston end was absolutely deranged, as crazy-legs mentioned. “First we’ll dig a massive hole in the ground and disrupt everything around it, trash the local area… and THEN we’ll decide what to build. And THEN we’ll decide what to build again. And THEN we’ll decide not to build it unless someone else pays for it for… some reason.

It’s the BLAIR card!

FFS not a sod was turned under Labour, this sits squarely with the Tories and their 14 years of chaos and 7 SoS for Transport

I think that it’s reasonable for the incoming government in 2010 to rely on what was the current report, which was Labour’s 2010 High Speed Rail report, and Labour’s appointed company, HS2 Ltd.

The 2014 review by David Higgins, the new conservative-appointed chair of HS2 Ltd, identified various issues^^ with Labour’s approach. What’s the phrase? P-Poor Planning…

I think that it’s reasonable for the incoming government in 2010 to rely on what was the current report, which was Labour’s 2010 High Speed Rail report, and Labour’s appointed company, HS2 Ltd.

The 2014 review by David Higgins, the new conservative-appointed chair of HS2 Ltd, identified various issues^^ with Labour’s approach. What’s the phrase? P-Poor Planning…

That was mostly political.

2009, DfT (under Labour) created HS2 Ltd to assess a second HS line (originally with intentions to connect to HS1, the St Pancras – Dover Eurostar line). In 2010, there was a Con-Lib coalition Government which promptly started messing around with things and it’s all fallen apart since then with progressive reviews, reviews of the reviews, “cost-cutting” and downgrading.

In 2010, there was a Con-Lib coalition Government which promptly started messing around with things and it’s all fallen apart since then with progressive reviews, reviews of the reviews, “cost-cutting” and downgrading.

The whole thing should have started anew and that is the fault of the conservatives. More analysis and some debated options, an understanding of the details before inviting tenders, etc.

Just reducing the speed of the trains from 400kph would have led to huge savings and reduced engineering problems, but these decisions need to be made at the beginning

A major infrastructure project report dashed out for the general election in 2010 was never a good place to begin, especially as initial cost estimates are wildly optimistic for most government projects

especially as initial cost estimates are wildly optimistic for most government projects

Contractors are forced to do this though because if they don’t massage the numbers their competitor will, and win the bid.  This is the problem with focusing on cost so much.

Just reducing the speed of the trains from 400kph would have led to huge savings and reduced engineering problems, but these decisions need to be made at the beginning

Absolutely this ^^.

It never needed 400kph trains. 300 would have been fine and dramatically cheaper. But Government wanted the gold-plated, “world leading”, best in class option – another political own goal just to say we had a faster train than the French / Spanish / Japanese.

Problem is that for every 10% faster you go than 300, costs of building and maintaining track, trains and infrastructure increases about 40%. It becomes uneconomical to try for much above that, even though many HS trains are designed and tested (on special test tracks) for 400kph.

Normal operating speed of the French TGV is 300 with sections at 320 although I think it’s supposed to be future proofed up to 350.

Euston – last news I had was they were starting preliminary work on the tunnels from West London to Euston, as they realised, finally, that Old Oak would not work as a terminus. Loads of simple reasons that should be obvious, but werent to the idiots who were planning it (making it up as they went along, as they were mates of the Government, and didnt have a clue aboyt the requirements).
As for the overall scheme, its just a complete cock up from start to finish. Initial wants were the fastest rail line in Europe. When thought about sanely, this was a stupid requirement that was not needed, and added, probably, 50% to the construction phase, as everything had to be made to very high standards, rather than the usual rail standards (which are high anyway). The tunneling cost a fortune, and viaducts in lots of places added more to the cost, these were planned as NIMBY would object to any surface lines in many areas.
Cutting back the Northern section is completely stupid, but hopefully Labour will reverse that decision, and continue with both northern legs, which will help a lot with reduction of congestion on lines around the south and Midlands. Currently the rail lines north to south/VV are pretty much full, making it difficult to add new services, and even harder for freight trains, which is the big move we need now to get trucks off the roads.
As it is, there will be a shuttle service to Birmingham, and some other trains will continue on the current lines North. Its a total bodge, and will not add much capacity to the system, at an extortionate cost. There is still time for them to see sense, and get the other bits added back in, to make it a good addition to the network.

I’m ambivalent about hs2

but, in the meantime, they could use that money to add new stations on existing lines.

theres a Trainline that goes through Kirkintilloch.

adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.

the revenue from these new train stations could be ploughed back into hs2, or other projects.

if the govt wants to meet its housing targets, they’re going to need these ‘bridgeheads’ to establish new towns.

“theres a Trainline that goes through Kirkintilloch.
adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.”

That’s a Scottish Government decision and cost. Get onto your MSP. Scotrail does have a reasonably good record with openings and enhancements, certainly in the central belt, maybe not so good in more rural areas. Many people in Stranraer are still fuming about having no trains for 9 months (started again a few weeks ago I think).

adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.

Sounds like you need to watch “letters to a president” to get your wish.

theres a Trainline that goes through Kirkintilloch.

adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.

You’ve got Lenzie station just down the road, and it’s on the Glasgow to Edinburgh mainline?

Apparently the plan to salt the earth didn’t come to fruition, so land purchase shouldn’t be a barrier to reinstating

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz4725118r5o.amp

Turns out the Tories are actually not the party of the economy, business, infrastructure etc. Who’d have thought it?!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/29/hs2-costs-rishi-sunak-chief-executive

You’ve got Lenzie station just down the road, and it’s on the Glasgow to Edinburgh mainline?

I think he means the old line running through Lennxtown. Which would be a line to nowhere, there are plenty lines needing improving or restoring before that.

Kilmacolm, the old Paisley Canal join onto the Ayrshire line (which would fix capacity issues between Gilmour Street and Central), double track the Largs line, send a service to Ayr, finish electrifying the Kilmarnock line, send more services to Ayr. I’d even say the Stranraer to Dumfries spur would be more viable, maybe the Dunblane – Crainlarich route via Doune and Callander. And more bike trains!