HS2 Review ongoing

[JonathanH]

How many 2 coach trains run into London and from where?

I think the OP is talking about the Chiltern line. They were advocating the connection from Euston to Old Oak Common being built but connected to an upgraded Chiltern line rather than a brand new line and having longer trains than those that currently run.

 

[EM2]

...if Lord Berkeley is telling things as they really are then Government should take notice and the taxpayers should have the right to know how and where their money is being invested/wasted

What makes you say that he's 'telling things as they really are' and the rest of the committee are not?

 

[HSTEd]

But intercity trains on the Chiltern line is a waste of time......
It's painfully slow.

Painfully.

 

[Camden]

What makes you say that he's 'telling things as they really are' and the rest of the committee are not?

Depending on what he and others have to say, that's potentially not for anyone here to answer, but instead something to be investigated.

 

[PR1Berske]

An increase of costs isn't linear compared to the benefits.

As the infrastructure costs increase the income from the trains stay the same, in doing so they are linear.

However the extra costs of running trains for 1 extra person is virtually zero, however the extra income is almost all of the extra ticket cost.

Therefore if you double the costs you don't need to double the number of extra passengers to still result in the same total benefits when related to the costs.

It's why I keep coming back to the point that rail passengers are above the level which they should be to be on track to meet the required passenger numbers to justify the costs.

Now on the original requirements were for circa 100 million passengers a year.

Starting with the base level of 31 million passengers between London and the regions which benefit from HS2 in 2009 and assuming that 1/3 of those passengers and that 40% of HS2 passengers start/end in London, that gives us a baseline of 20 million passengers from London and 50 million overall. (This corolates with the expected doubling of passenger numbers).

Now by 2018 the growth model had assumed that (using 2.5% growth each year) that there would have been 24.9% growth. As can be seen from the table below that this growth had been 49% across all regions.

View media item 3340
That means that if we saw 2.5% growth from now until 2037 (bearing in mind that Virgin had recently seen 3.5% growth, so isn't unreasonable) then rather than having 100 million passengers we'd see 120 million passengers.

To carry that many passengers wouldn't need any extra infrastructure or any extra staff, however there's 20 million extra passengers each year. If we assume that the average ticket is £40 for each of those passengers that's £800 million. Even at an extra £50bn that's enough income to cover interest payments of 1.6%, however the UK bond rate is half that at just under 0.75%.

You keep posting these large submissions and I'm sorry Ham, they do nothing for me.

The government could look at exactly the same info as you keep posting and decide "Don't care, we're axing it." At the end of the day, passenger numbers have peaked, the WCML is free of most congestion, and no justification exists for spending over £80bn on a subpar Heathrow express from Birmingham Airport.

Your repeated graphs and tables will count for nowt if the political reality dictates that the scheme had to be scrapped. And you know that.

 

[Neen Sollars]

How many 2 coach trains run into London and from where?

The Ham, Chiltern running two car units into Marylebone, seen it on u tube, some from Oxford, some from Banbury I think. There appears to be a platform at Marylebone which will only take a five car unit, again from my observations Chiltern stack trains in the longer platforms so unless those platforms can hold 12 coaches they may be restricted to length of trains they can accommodate. So five cars should be the minimum so long as they fit. I keep reading on these threads about lack of platform capacity at London stations, hence my view that as the Euston site has been cleared they might as well build the extra platforms and the link to OOC, The GLA should have a financial stake in this project. Some Chiltern Main Line and West Coast ML could then run into Euston.

 

[PR1Berske]

What makes you say that he's 'telling things as they really are' and the rest of the committee are not?

He has access to the figures and costs. If his conclusion is negative, we must believe him.

 

[Yindee8191]

He has access to the figures and costs. If his conclusion is negative, we must believe him.

The official review also has access to the figures and costs. If it’s conclusion is positive (as it seems likely to be), which should we then believe? The official review, with a panel of experts and most of the rail industry behind it, or a review created by one man with a seemingly ideological opposition to the project no matter its benefits?

 

[PR1Berske]

Peak trains out of London are not crowded. It's the first off-peak trains that are, because of rampant price gouging.

And as HS2 is now going to cost £110bn, you can expect more of that price-gouging to come. SouthEastern were allowed to put all their fares up by 3% above inflation to pay for HS1.


You mean released, right. This is exactly what he was saying back in October, before the election got in the way.



If the benefits are £60bn and the cost is £50bn then you have a worthwhile project. If you have £60bn benefits and the cost is £110bn you don't have a worthwhile project.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue? That the benefits miraculously increase just because the cost does?

@The Ham does not believe that HS2 has an upper limit to its budget. They believe, however, that HS2 is vital so no amount of criticism can change their minds, even if, as you say, the logic behind the scheme is questionable.

People like the Ham used to say that my criticism was wrong because I want it to be benefital to the whole nation given the cost. They used to say that it wasn't designed to benefit the nation so my opposition didn't count.
Later on, though, they flipped, claiming that HS2 could fix anything. From commuters in Swansea to tourists in Barrow, HS2 was now a national "fix all"

I know the truth about HS2. It's not about capacity, it's not about speed, it's just about giving London yet more "bling".

 

[PR1Berske]

The official review also has access to the figures and costs. If it’s conclusion is positive (as it seems likely to be), which should we then believe? The official review, with a panel of experts and most of the rail industry behind it, or a review created by one man with a seemingly ideological opposition to the project no matter its benefits?

We should take from any division in opinion that the scheme is not watertight, not justifiable for its cost, and pause it until another review goes back to basics with the new facts.

If there is any doubt over spending £88bn+ on one new railway line into London Euston, it should be stopped until there are no doubts at all.

 

[Ianno87]

Surely, the key concern over HS2 (regardless of ever increasing costs) is that, despite reassurances and waffle, the main supporters are still just those travelling/commuting to London. It rarely gets much media coverage identifying just how it will really help the Midlands/North - if indeed it ever will.
There will be many who gain nothing whatsoever from HS2, but would have gained an enormous amount from a proper high speed railway between the northern cities.

It's not "up front" though, is it? It's after an artificially low budget was used to push it through Parliament. Given the cost has already doubled before any major construction has taken place, and given that landowners have been royally shafted through the compulsory purchase proces, it's fair to say the Crossrail inflation is still to come.

As for a "better understanding", that should have been in place before they came to Parliament and promised the impossible.

Parliamentary powers are no guarantee of actually building the line. That only ultimately happens when the budgets for the main construction contracts are releasd. Arguably, there's little point in finalising the budget until you know *exactly* what land footprint and powers you to have to work with. Which needs powers first. Chicken and Egg.

Budget is fairly irrelevant to the Parliamentary process, which is more around "is there credibly likely to be funding available for this scheme" and "are the benefits likely to outweigh the costs" etc.

Both of which are still, in my view "Yes".

He has access to the figures and costs. If his conclusion is negative, we must believe him.

So why is his conclusion any more or less believable than the full Oakervee report (whenever it gets published)? Berkeley's report is, in essence, his own point of view. Oakervee will be a consensus of the point of view of a panel of experts, not all of whom will be particularly wedded to whether HS2 happens or not (other than generally believing in transport schemes).

I know which one I'd rely on more, but both are useful pieces of information. Not read it yet, but Berkeley's report may still have some useful arguments for refining the main HS2 scheme.

 

[deltic]

Problem with HS2 is that it was never properly costed in the first place, Treasury imposed a cost per mile based on examples from elsewhere that didnt take into account issues such as ground conditions that they were unable to assess until they had Parliamentary approval. The UK construction industry cannot cope with the scale of the scheme - Curzon St had to be retendered due to lack of interest by bidders.

Even with costs of around £110bn the benefit cost ratio is still around 1. Although reducing train from 18 to 14 per hour will likely reduce benefits more than costs. Once you have built an expensive piece of infrastructure it makes sense to maximise its usage. As with Crossrail the programme is likely to be stretched to reduce costs with opening for phase 1 probably not till 2030s and phase 2 late 2040s.

 

[Ianno87]

We should take from any division in opinion that the scheme is not watertight, not justifiable for its cost, and pause it until another review goes back to basics with the new facts.

No need. I'm sure Oakervee will do that very nicely.

It's really not surprising that an individual known to be a critic of HS2...breaks ranks and produces a report critical of HS2 hardly balanced, is it?

If there is any doubt over spending £88bn+ on one new railway line into London Euston, it should be stopped until there are no doubts at all.

...plus Birmingham Curzon Street, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds too (plus spurs). You are clearly very forgetful.

Besides, the Oakervee review is soecifically to reduce the doubts.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

We should take from any division in opinion that the scheme is not watertight, not justifiable for its cost, and pause it until another review goes back to basics with the new facts.

If there is any doubt over spending £88bn+ on one new railway line into London Euston, it should be stopped until there are no doubts at all.

Excellent idea to make work for more consultants...and therefore inertia.

 

[PR1Berske]

Excellent idea to make work for more consultants...and therefore inertia.

When the budget is £80bn+ I'd rather delay to get things right than rush into a mistake.

 

[PR1Berske]

No need. I'm sure Oakervee will do that very nicely.

It's really not surprising that an individual known to be a critic of HS2...breaks ranks and produces a report critical of HS2 hardly balanced, is it?





...plus Birmingham Curzon Street, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds too (plus spurs). You are clearly very forgetful.

HS2 is designed to go into London Euston. Nothing else is guaranteed.

 

[PR1Berske]

Problem with HS2 is that it was never properly costed in the first place

Exactly. The cost was deliberately reduced to ease it through Parliament.

 

[thejuggler]

When the argument from the "Lord against HS2" is "it won't improve the service of the daily commuter" its probably time to stop listening to him. HS2 isn't an either/or scenario.

By all means raise concerns about commuter services in the North, but not using the cover of HS2 as a reason they won't be improved.

 

[Neen Sollars]

I know the truth about HS2. It's not about capacity, it's not about speed, it's just about giving London yet more "bling".[/QUOTE]

Here Here! And I think Bojo "gets that" As I stated before, HS2 should go from Bham Curzon St and Bham International northwards, to integrate with Northern Powerhouse East West HS3. However costs could be reduced by reducing the maximum speed, 250 mph is ridiculous. I think existing new rolling stock is capable of speeds of in excess of 150 mph but limited to 125 mph? The new line needs much better integration with the existing network and Toton station needs an urgent review.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

But intercity trains on the Chiltern line is a waste of time......
It's painfully slow.

Painfully.

For the very simple reason that Chiltern , who have done an excellent job in rejuvenating a line that certain people wanted to turn into a busway in the era of the Blessed Margaret , draw a very tough card on managing the various aspirations of a great number of people , - from local Metro commuters from say West Ruislip , to the well heeled (anti - HST 2 residents of the M25 zone) , to Oxford and beyond.

When the budget is £80bn+ I'd rather delay to get things right than rush into a mistake.

There are always options for "value management" and saving costs - the maligned SRA comprised on WCML , met most timetable aspirations , got a fair bit of extra resources built in , but kept the scheme on the road and delivered something from a legal and contractual shambles. (Headline costs came down from something like £14 Billion to £8 something billion)

 

[HSTEd]

When the budget is £80bn+ I'd rather delay to get things right than rush into a mistake.

Construction inflation runs much higher than real inflation. In part because of the idiotic way the British construction industry is organised.

So delaying is the best way to drive the cost through the roof.

 

[Taunton]

Problem with HS2 is that it was never properly costed in the first place, Treasury imposed a cost per mile based on examples from elsewhere that didnt take into account issues such as ground conditions that they were unable to assess until they had Parliamentary approval. The UK construction industry cannot cope with the scale of the scheme - Curzon St had to be retendered due to lack of interest by bidders.

The London to West Midlands bit, all that is actively being prepared at the moment, is about 130 miles. The formation width is significantly less than a motorway. We built and opened that sort of motorway mileage every 3 to 4 years in the 1960s-70s. It has only expanded by, as ever with rail schemes, huge gold plating of the whole thing.

The M40 motorway from Thame in Oxfordshire, by the Chilterns, to Warwick, was opened all in one hit in the mid-1980s. It pretty much parallels much of HS2. I don't recall it's price but it wasn't £100bn and mostly was built and opened with little impact beyond the actual alignment locality.

In among the £100bn is already quite a few £bn for engineering design consultants, whose principal job is to survey, put detail in, cost it by current criteria, and assist the letting of contracts. If they can't do this job that they said they could, and were paid for, they should give their fees back.

 

[Ianno87]

When the budget is £80bn+ I'd rather delay to get things right than rush into a mistake.

...the current route has been in development for well over a decade. If there was something so fundamentally wrong with it, it would've been spotted by now with the amount of scrutiny the scheme has been under.

HS2 is designed to go into London Euston. Nothing else is guaranteed.

Of course it isn't guranteed - it's still being designed! Hardly surprising, is it?

But without Phase 1 there cannot be the northern phases...nowhere for the trains to go for starters. Cancelling Phase 1 makes the northern phases pretty much certain not to happen. Phase 1 is ready to get built. Delaying it will achieve nothing.

 

[ABB125]

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaidcds:US:8e9c8f87-2650-4aa0-8e0f-0eaf6e709640
This link will (hopefully!) take you to the report.

EDIT: I've attached a PDF copy in post 736

 

[The Planner]

The M40 motorway from Thame in Oxfordshire, by the Chilterns, to Warwick, was opened all in one hit in the mid-1980s. It pretty much parallels much of HS2. I don't recall it's price but it wasn't £100bn and mostly was built and opened with little impact beyond the actual alignment locality.

Opened in 1991 IIRC, though it wasn't a quick process as it was added to the trunk road programme in 1972, public inquiry finished in 1983. Cost was £293 million then, taking into account inflation around £770 million now.

 

[PartyOperator]

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaidcds:US:8e9c8f87-2650-4aa0-8e0f-0eaf6e709640
This link will (hopefully!) take you to the report

Is this an early draft or his final report? Seems like it could do with some editing!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I know the truth about HS2. It's not about capacity, it's not about speed, it's just about giving London yet more "bling".

Wow. So that would be one of the most completely utterly wrong statements about HS2 that anyone has posted here in the last couple of days. But prefaced with 'I know the truth'

I have to say this for you. You post your falsehoods with style

 

[Facing Back]

I know the truth about HS2. It's not about capacity, it's not about speed, it's just about giving London yet more "bling".

Here Here! And I think Bojo "gets that" As I stated before, HS2 should go from Bham Curzon St and Bham International northwards, to integrate with Northern Powerhouse East West HS3. However costs could be reduced by reducing the maximum speed, 250 mph is ridiculous. I think existing new rolling stock is capable of speeds of in excess of 150 mph but limited to 125 mph? The new line needs much better integration with the existing network and Toton station needs an urgent review.[/QUOTE]
As I understand it, the new line is very deliberately being built with limited integration with the current network in the south of England and likewise with very limited stops.

I also understand, after a couple of years reading people's opinions on HS2 that any design will likely fully please a vanishingly small number of people. The rest of us will look at it and, depending on our particular circumstances and requirements, prefer changes, minor or major. There are a number of things I'd change if I was totally in charge and only had to please myself. Should it go north first rather than south from Birmingham? Suits me, I live in the North, I get value when its all done.

Agreed we don't have 100% certainty of the final cost and we don't have 100% certainty of the benefits over the 50 or so years of the benefit case. We don't have 100% agreement from interested parties on whether we should do it at all let alone the detail of where it should run and stop, how fast it should be, what type of mints to sell in the on-train catering outlet. Did I say catering? Don't let GWR operate the trains....

Lets wait until all these things are at 100% before spending a single more penny on this pink elephant...

...Except of course we'd never build it and by extension we'd never build anything.

It's axiomatic of complex programmes that you have 100% certainty on actual cost shortly after you finish. If the programme is well run then your level of confidence in the estimates increases over time. You start with an idea and a guess of costs, get some funding for a bit of design work, come back with a skeleton design and indicative cost, get some more money for more design, revise costs, get serious money for detail design/surveying, revise costs, start digging and find out what the soil is really like... Costs evolve as the programme evolves. Theoretically they could go down but we all know that doesn't happen.

Benefits are treated like a black art. We're not going to know what the bottom line benefit to the UK economy is going to be in 60 years time so we forecast and speculate. We can measure revenue but we don't have a baseline on what we would have earned without the project, we can measure passenger journeys but they are a metric from which we derive a benefit.

Of course we don't all agree on the detail. I'm going to trust that the many, many years and billions of pounds spent developing the programme to this stage has considered all of the options that we've discussed on this forum and that the Oakervee review - and the "red team" dissenting view from Lord Berkley give us a checkpoint to review the design decisions as well as costings and benefits analysis.

I'm also going to recognise that one of my bugbears with the railways is that we don't plan well and keep reacting tactically when something goes wrong - especially when the problem was quite obvious even with foresight rather than just hindsight. HS2 is doing precisely that, looking decades ahead, forecasting where we are going to be, and putting in place a strategic programme of work.

I know that the design isn't perfect, the execution to date has been shambolic in places, the figures based on assumptions and, for sure, in some cases influenced by vested interests, yet still I'm enthusiastic.

Or we can decide that big infrastructure isn't for us as we don't have the appetite for risk, and if we want to see it then we can move to China.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

hence my view that as the Euston site has been cleared they might as well build the extra platforms and the link to OOC, The GLA should have a financial stake in this project. Some Chiltern Main Line and West Coast ML could then run into Euston.

So let's get this right.... You're proposing that we spend a fair chunk of the money allocated to HS2 (remembering that the underground station at Euston and the tunnels leading out of it are going to be one of the most expensive parts of HS2, because building underground stations is expensive). But instead of getting an entire new line giving up to 18tph of long distance trains and massively relieving capacity on the WCML, you want to use the massive expense of this new underground station and approaches to basically get maybe a couple of extra tph on the Chiltern line and divert a few trains from the Great Western Line (I'm assuming you meant the GW line not the West Coast ML)?

 

[ExRes]

What makes you say that he's 'telling things as they really are' and the rest of the committee are not?

Perhaps you could actually read my comment, if you do you'll find "... if Lord Berkeley is telling things as they really are ....", the use of the word 'if' rather gives away the fact that I'm not claiming that he is or isn't telling the truth