• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

HS2 Review ongoing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-come-clean-on-soaring-costs-of-hs2-gknqwstbt

Set to be delayed from 2026 and costs to go up to £80bn

Ballooning costs and delays to the HS2 rail link are expected to be confirmed by transport secretary Grant Shapps.

The cost of building the north-south railway, which is intended to run from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, is expected to rise from £56bn to about £80bn.

Boris Johnson has ordered a review of Europe’s biggest infrastructure project, which could lead to its top speed being cut from 225mph, or the plan being scrapped altogether. Shapps is set to reveal the soaring costs in a statement to parliament this week, and to say the London to Birmingham leg will not open as intended by 2026.

It is understood that a director at one of HS2’s biggest suppliers is joining the rail link, raising further questions about potential conflicts of interest in a project beset by controversy.

David Bennett is leaving engineering giant Jacobs to become interim delivery director — the latest in a string of senior staff to switch sides.

America’s Jacobs has a £350m deal to deliver the London-Birmingham leg of HS2, after its acquisition of CH2M in 2017. It also has a £965m contract to dig tunnels and build a viaduct.

HS2 was engulfed by controversy in 2017 over its closeness to CH2M, which led to the engineer handing back a £170m contract. HS2 chief executive Mark Thurston was hired from CH2M.

HS2 said: “Our chief executive has spoken publicly about the cost pressures . . . and we are working closely with our contractors to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.”

It added: “David Bennett is joining the project as delivery director . . . until a permanent appointment is finalised.”
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Normally conflict of interest arguments are if a civil servant goes to work for a bidder, hard to see the argument for that if its flowing the other way as they cant really influence a bid after its already been awarded.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Normally conflict of interest arguments are if a civil servant goes to work for a bidder, hard to see the argument for that if its flowing the other way as they cant really influence a bid after its already been awarded.

Agreed, it could be an issue if there were more packages being offered and their previous employer/current employer (if on secondment) is bidding for the work.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
There are a small number of people for who no price will ever be too much. How or whether this gets shut down is more a test of democratic accountability than infrastructure governance. It should never have got this far.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
Jacobs are certainly not digging any tunnels - they are design engineers in the Align JV.

As is often the case the whole HS2 budget is quoted along with a timeline for London to Birmingham.

HS2 construction is already running a couple of years behind programme and lack of interest has led to some sections having to be retendered.

The lack of transparency in major construction projects undermines the credibility of all significant rail projects and reduces the chances of East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse rail ever going anywhere.
 

Nagora

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2018
Messages
43
Much as I am dubious about HS2, I long ago stopped believing anything printed in The Times on any subject, whether it matched my own pre-conceived opinion or not.

Quite the opposite, in fact: anything like this is likely to have been planted/fed/leaked/fabricated for a purely political reason and only makes me wonder if perhaps the project might be doing okay after all.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
If the business need is that our current railway network is at a point where capacity will be severely compromised in the next 10+ years the cost shouldn't even be debated. If we need it, build it.
 

Via Bank

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2010
Messages
669
Location
London
The trouble in this country is that we fail to understand the concept of 'induced demand.'

This is why the Government routinely signs off billions towards schemes to widen motorways, build bypasses, etc. while sustainable modes of transport are endlessly debated, de-scoped, deferred, and ignored.

We're in a climate emergency, and canning HS2 while freezing or cutting fuel duty would send a strong message that the Government wants you to help send us over the edge.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
Oh it's about the "climate emergency" now is it??.. don't tell me, it was *always* about the "climate emergency"..
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
The trouble in this country is that we fail to understand the concept of 'induced demand.'

This is why the Government routinely signs off billions towards schemes to widen motorways, build bypasses, etc. while sustainable modes of transport are endlessly debated, de-scoped, deferred, and ignored.

We're in a climate emergency, and canning HS2 while freezing or cutting fuel duty would send a strong message that the Government wants you to help send us over the edge.

I'd be quite happy to see any additional cost of HS2 construction met by an increase in fuel duty.

;)
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Oh it's about the "climate emergency" now is it??.. don't tell me, it was *always* about the "climate emergency"..

No, but it's relevant if we are to achieve modal switch.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Oh it's about the "climate emergency" now is it??.. don't tell me, it was *always* about the "climate emergency"..
Well if you accept that rail travel is less environmentally damaging than an equivalent number of passengers making the same journeys by road vehicles or by air, then yes.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
Well if you accept that rail travel is less environmentally damaging than an equivalent number of passengers making the same journeys by road vehicles or by air, then yes.

Though my understanding was that HS2 was over-specified (in terms of speed and so on) to the extent that most of the environmental advantages of rail (over road) were nullified.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Though my understanding was that HS2 was over-specified (in terms of speed and so on) to the extent that most of the environmental advantages of rail (over road) were nullified.
Only when the trains actually run at speeds over 300 or 320km/h. The alignment would have a very slightly larger landtake, but the smoother path would reduce the maintenance (and possibly energy) requirements of 300km/h running trains.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
A number of enthusiasts seem quite relaxed about the slippery slope that we are heading down here... if the Government decide that a project can and should be cancelled if it goes above budget then that creates a rather dangerous precedent for future projects.

Sure - you might be perfectly relaxed about HS2 being cancelled because it's focussed on the three largest urban conurbations in the country and most enthusiasts are only really interested in (a) directly improving their own local line and (b) re-openings that follow some Victorian alignment... so I fully appreciate why HS2 is relatively unloved even amongst the enthusiast community... but if the Government are fine to scrap any project that is a combination of...

  • badly planned at first
  • goes over-budget
  • ends up seeing contacts re-tendered part way through a build that takes several years (especially given the instability in the construction industry, the problems experienced by a few groups of contractors)

...then that's a wind which is going to cause many rail schemes to be cancelled - apparently it's easy to criticise the way that HS2 has been delayed and gone over budget whilst ignoring the way that other (conventional) projects did - e.g. should we have cancelled GWML electrification, the Borders railway and the building of pretty much every new station? Because if rising prices and delays are acceptable reasons to swing the axe on any project then be careful what you wish for...
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
A number of enthusiasts seem quite relaxed about the slippery slope that we are heading down here... if the Government decide that a project can and should be cancelled if it goes above budget then that creates a rather dangerous precedent for future projects.

Sure - you might be perfectly relaxed about HS2 being cancelled because it's focussed on the three largest urban conurbations in the country and most enthusiasts are only really interested in (a) directly improving their own local line and (b) re-openings that follow some Victorian alignment... so I fully appreciate why HS2 is relatively unloved even amongst the enthusiast community... but if the Government are fine to scrap any project that is a combination of...

  • badly planned at first
  • goes over-budget
  • ends up seeing contacts re-tendered part way through a build that takes several years (especially given the instability in the construction industry, the problems experienced by a few groups of contractors)

...then that's a wind which is going to cause many rail schemes to be cancelled - apparently it's easy to criticise the way that HS2 has been delayed and gone over budget whilst ignoring the way that other (conventional) projects did - e.g. should we have cancelled GWML electrification, the Borders railway and the building of pretty much every new station? Because if rising prices and delays are acceptable reasons to swing the axe on any project then be careful what you wish for...

Very wise words.
 

Cambrian359

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2018
Messages
202
Personally I think the government are wanting to cancel hs2 regardless of what the report says so they can fund Borris recent promises for police, schools etc and will probably claim new technology will improve capacity on existing lines so there isn’t need to build hs2.
just my thoughts,not saying I agree with any of the above but I genuinely think they have already decided it’s fate and the review is just nonsense.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Personally I think the government are wanting to cancel hs2 regardless of what the report says so they can fund Borris recent promises for police, schools etc and will probably claim new technology will improve capacity on existing lines so there isn’t need to build hs2.
just my thoughts,not saying I agree with any of the above but I genuinely think they have already decided it’s fate and the review is just nonsense.

The money is not interchangeable in that way.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Though my understanding was that HS2 was over-specified (in terms of speed and so on) to the extent that most of the environmental advantages of rail (over road) were nullified.

Using the table below it would appear that by tripling the energy use that we'd be slightly worse than going by car:

View media item 3489
HOWEVER, that's using data from (IIRC) 2007, as such the amount of carbon created by our power supply network has got significantly lower by using more wind and solar.

Yes cars will have got greener too, but not at the same rate.

However even StopHS2 only claim double energy use:
http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Is-HS2-good-for-the-environment-v1.1.pdf

In which case then it's still going to be better than driving, even before considering the greening of the power grid, especially given that cars are likely to get stuck in congestion which reduces fuel efficiency and isn't taken into account is the sorts of calculations used to create such graphics.
 

moggie

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
426
Location
West Midlands
The money is not interchangeable in that way.

Who says so? You're forgetting who it is that thinks he's in charge these days. Cambrian has it spot on imho. Once the planned spend comes off the dft books the treasury is free to do what it wants. Not spend anything or spend it on Boris's UK economic survival. Either way Rail won't see any of it - see my other post regarding the so far unspent 'Pipeline' enhancement money.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Who says so? You're forgetting who it is that thinks he's in charge these days. Cambrian has it spot on imho. Once the planned spend comes off the dft books the treasury is free to do what it wants. Not spend anything or spend it on Boris's UK economic survival. Either way Rail won't see any of it - see my other post regarding the so far unspent 'Pipeline' enhancement money.

The main issue is that (even ignoring the fact that the spend is due to be repaid through extra taxes/ticket sales/lower government costs/etc.) is that once you've spent it at one point you can't spend it again later.

Let's say you wish to spend 30bn on the NHS (it doesn't matter what it is, I'm just using that as an example).

Over what timeframe is that spending over?

1 year would be great, but you couldn't spend it on extra staff as they would only be employed for a year, you could use it to invest in buildings so that they are cheaper to run. However the benefits are likely to be limited.

5 years then? Well that's no good as that's just before an election before the spending needs to be cut, so you'd better make it 8 to be sure that you are into the next parliament before it's a problem. However that's now less than £4bn a year in an NHS budget of ~£115bn a year, so that's not going to make a big difference. It also means that if you get elected next time you'd better have a funding source to keep those costs going.

Then you have the problem that if you do cut HS2 when there really are no seats in a train which would have benefited from HS2 and an opposition party leader has to stand/sir in the floor?

You'll want to be sure that's not going to be a potential problem otherwise you're going to have to answer some awkward questions. As such you are going to have to keep some to invest in the railways (so you can point at that), so what schemes can you pull out of the hat and what do they cost? (Hence the reason for £30bn above rather than £56bn as you'll need the rest for this).

Chances are there's an idea of what's expected; probably scaled back to London to Birmingham or Crewe. Look we've "saved" all this money. Kick the can down the road until after the next election and then "realise" that you need to get to Manchester because of the growth and that you wouldn't be able to run any more trains/longer trains (except for a few around Birmingham). You then announce that it's going to reach Manchester "early" in 2030 rather than 2033.

Depending on how hard it is to win seats in the East Midlands, you may have to include a bit of a spur towards there to provide faster journey times and some extra capacity to/from Birmingham. Probably with some promise to look at future investment to improve things further.

Alternatively you look at the land you've already purchased and announce a new toll motorway along the route, reaching right into the heart of Birmingham and London, then build a large car park at Curzon Street & Euston with the land you've got there. Sell said car parks for a lot of money to recover some of the costs.
 

JeffH16

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2019
Messages
15
The main issue is that (even ignoring the fact that the spend is due to be repaid through extra taxes/ticket sales/lower government costs/etc.) is that once you've spent it at one point you can't spend it again later.

Let's say you wish to spend 30bn on the NHS (it doesn't matter what it is, I'm just using that as an example).

Over what timeframe is that spending over?

1 year would be great, but you couldn't spend it on extra staff as they would only be employed for a year, you could use it to invest in buildings so that they are cheaper to run. However the benefits are likely to be limited.

5 years then? Well that's no good as that's just before an election before the spending needs to be cut, so you'd better make it 8 to be sure that you are into the next parliament before it's a problem. However that's now less than £4bn a year in an NHS budget of ~£115bn a year, so that's not going to make a big difference. It also means that if you get elected next time you'd better have a funding source to keep those costs going.

Then you have the problem that if you do cut HS2 when there really are no seats in a train which would have benefited from HS2 and an opposition party leader has to stand/sir in the floor?

You'll want to be sure that's not going to be a potential problem otherwise you're going to have to answer some awkward questions. As such you are going to have to keep some to invest in the railways (so you can point at that), so what schemes can you pull out of the hat and what do they cost? (Hence the reason for £30bn above rather than £56bn as you'll need the rest for this).

Chances are there's an idea of what's expected; probably scaled back to London to Birmingham or Crewe. Look we've "saved" all this money. Kick the can down the road until after the next election and then "realise" that you need to get to Manchester because of the growth and that you wouldn't be able to run any more trains/longer trains (except for a few around Birmingham). You then announce that it's going to reach Manchester "early" in 2030 rather than 2033.

Depending on how hard it is to win seats in the East Midlands, you may have to include a bit of a spur towards there to provide faster journey times and some extra capacity to/from Birmingham. Probably with some promise to look at future investment to improve things further.

Alternatively you look at the land you've already purchased and announce a new toll motorway along the route, reaching right into the heart of Birmingham and London, then build a large car park at Curzon Street & Euston with the land you've got there. Sell said car parks for a lot of money to recover some of the costs.
So, are you proposing a single lane motorway from Birmingham to london as a replacement to HS2?
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
So, are you proposing a single lane motorway from Birmingham to london as a replacement to HS2?
You've misunderstood @The Ham I think. He's setting out the alternatives if politicians choose to dilute or reject HS2. They're very pro- so I think you've not quite got his cynical rhetoric.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
A number of enthusiasts seem quite relaxed about the slippery slope that we are heading down here... if the Government decide that a project can and should be cancelled if it goes above budget then that creates a rather dangerous precedent for future projects.

Sure - you might be perfectly relaxed about HS2 being cancelled because it's focussed on the three largest urban conurbations in the country and most enthusiasts are only really interested in (a) directly improving their own local line and (b) re-openings that follow some Victorian alignment... so I fully appreciate why HS2 is relatively unloved even amongst the enthusiast community... but if the Government are fine to scrap any project that is a combination of...

  • badly planned at first
  • goes over-budget
  • ends up seeing contacts re-tendered part way through a build that takes several years (especially given the instability in the construction industry, the problems experienced by a few groups of contractors)

...then that's a wind which is going to cause many rail schemes to be cancelled - apparently it's easy to criticise the way that HS2 has been delayed and gone over budget whilst ignoring the way that other (conventional) projects did - e.g. should we have cancelled GWML electrification, the Borders railway and the building of pretty much every new station? Because if rising prices and delays are acceptable reasons to swing the axe on any project then be careful what you wish for...
We certainly should not be relaxed by the number of rail schemes that end up way over budget.

Costing needs to be radically improved in the industry otherwise schemes will not be approved in the first place.

Crossrail cost overruns and delays have certainly impacted on the willingness to proceed with Crossrail 2 while HS2 cost overruns are certainly not helping the case for transpennine improvements.

Escalating costs for East West Rail has meant what should have been a no brainier for Oxford - Bedford section, being descoped and making very slow progress. The chances of ever getting to Cambridge are steadily diminishing.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
It will be interesting to know which bits of HS2 are *dramatically* over budget - and why.
How it can be so incredibly wrong is ...er...incredible.
 

Nagora

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2018
Messages
43
There's a parallel with the no-deal Brexit here: if you don't make the other side believe that you will walk away from the table then they will offer you nothing. If contractors don't believe that badly managed over-spent projects might get cancelled before they get their big pay-off, then all you will ever get is badly-managed over-spent projects. And, clearly, no one should be trying to find excuses to cancel such projects, but that doesn't mean you write blank cheques.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
It will be interesting to know which bits of HS2 are *dramatically* over budget - and why.
How it can be so incredibly wrong is ...er...incredible.
More to the point:
which costs have escalated?
what basis were the original costs validated against?
what are the overspend claims validated against now?​
I suspect that none of the HS2 detractors are able to provide any supporting evidence, - mainly because the inflated figures are false. If any objectors here could come up with such evidence, their posts would be discussed in an adult way rather than having to repeat the facts every time an unsubstantiated anti HS2 rant is posted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top