• 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 recommendation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
Building the high-speed rail link HS2 could cost up to £106bn, a government-commissioned review has said.

The unpublished report, seen by the Financial Times , says there is "considerable risk" that estimated costs could rise by another 20%.

In 2015, HS2 was set to cost £56bn.

The review also recommends pausing the second phase of the project while experts look at whether conventional lines could help link Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds instead.

Some £8bn has already been spent on the project, which will connect London, the Midlands and northern England using trains capable of travelling at 250mph.

BBC transport correspondent Tom Burridge said that "on balance", the review recommends the government should proceed with the project, but he added this "is hardly a ringing endorsement".

On Friday, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said a decision on whether to go ahead with the project would be made "very soon".

The government previously promised to make a decision before the end of 2019.

a0d198a1-b76b-4fef-90ee-314cb77e6297

HS2 in numbers. [ £55.6bn Existing budget ] [ £32.7bn Original budget ],[ £7.4bn Already spent on the project ],[ 9,000 Jobs supported by the railway ],[ 345 miles New high-speed track ],[ 50 minutes Journey time saving between London and Manchester ], Source: Source: HS2, Image: HS2 railway.
The review, led by former HS2 chairman Doug Oakervee, comes as around 15 Conservative MPs from across England prepare to meet the prime minister this week to raise significant concerns about the project. Some will press him to abandon the rail link in favour of other infrastructure spending in the north of England.

Claire Walker, co-executive director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, told the BBC on Monday that the project must go ahead. "Business communities are united that this project should be delivered and should be delivered in full," she said. "There is no project that has been proposed that will go so far in delivering the transformational change to the Northern business communities as this project will."

Boris Johnson has sent varying signals on the project so far, insisting costs cannot continue to spiral while also hinting that, temperamentally, he is in favour of a scheme that could help rebalance the UK's lopsided economy and address regional disparities.

In September, a "stocktake" report by the chairman of HS2, Allan Cook , concluded that the cost had risen to between £81bn and £88bn.

Image copyrightSIEMENS/ PA
_108389303_hs2siemenspa.jpg

Image captionA proposed design for an HS2 train
The first segment of project between London and Birmingham is due to open at the end of 2026, with the second phase to Leeds and Manchester expected to be completed by 2032-33.

The spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, will publish another report about HS2 in the coming days.

Despite concerns about the rail link, which is Europe's largest infrastructure project, work is not on hold and the project currently gets through around £250m a month.

What will HS2 do?
HS2 is a new railway line which, once completed, would run from London to the West Midlands, Manchester and Leeds.

Trains on the London to Birmingham route would be 400m-long (1,300ft) with up to 1,100 seats. They would run as many as 14 times per hour in each direction.

The Department for Transport says the project will cut Birmingham to London journey times from one hour 21 minutes to 52 minutes.

_108391037_report_map_updated-nc.png

_109028083_1px_white_line-nc.png

Once the second phase is complete, Manchester to London journeys would take one hour seven minutes (down from two hours seven minutes), and Birmingham to Leeds would take 49 minutes (down from two hours).

This would effectively reduce journey times between London and Edinburgh and London and Glasgow by an hour, to three-and-a-half hours.

The government hopes its creation will free up capacity on overcrowded commuter routes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-51171249

any thoughts
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
The longer it takes to get the track down then surely the more expensive the project costs?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,246
Location
St Albans
Once again those figures are meaningless without a definition of their scope. For instance, the original £32.7bn budget, does it include:
the difference in cost of providing the Sheffield branch instead of the Meadowhall interchange?
does it include the rolling stock?
cost escalation to the same ECs as the current existing budget?
cost escalation to the same ECs as the various inflated figure quoted?​
The detractors eagerly grasp the unqualified sensationalist figures trotted out by the media, either ingnorant of those issues, or conveniently using them to manipulate the opinions of those who don't understand.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,246
Location
St Albans
Once again those figures are meaningless without a definition of their scope. For instance, the original £32.7bn budget, does it include:
the difference in cost of providing the Sheffield branch instead of the Meadowhall interchange?
does it include the rolling stock?
cost escalation to the same ECs as the current existing budget?
cost escalation to the same ECs as the various inflated figure quoted?​
The detractors eagerly grasp the unqualified sensationalist figures trotted out by the media, either ingnorant of those issues, or conveniently using them to manipulate the opinions of those who don't understand.
The longer it takes to get the track down then surely the more expensive the project costs?
Yes, of course, the occurrence of delays even when deliberately caused by political procrastination and interference, result in the total figure rising. The new bigger number does not necessarily represent a true increase in cost.
 

Metrailway

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2011
Messages
575
Location
Birmingham/Coventry/London
I've read the FT article and it is not great reading for HS2. FT claims the Oakervee report just about approves phase 1 and states that phase 2 should be reviewed to see whether improving classic lines is a better option.
It states that the economic benefits of the scheme are hard to see. Economic benefits would need substantial local transport investment.
It also critizes the current phase 1 construction project management with no acceptable prices agreed with contractors for the Euston reconstruction.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,110
Location
SE London
I saw that BBC Article and - maybe someone could check/confirm, but to me the article looks so inaccurate/misleading that I'm wondering if there are any procedures to formally complain to the BBC about it.

Firstly there's the issue that the article describes the benefits of HS2 almost exclusively in terms of speed, with very little mention of the capacity improvements that are its real purpose - this gives a misleading impression of the purpose of HS2.

And secondly, the article quotes cost figures that are not directly comparable. The £32.7bn was at 2011 prices (and like AM9, my suspicion is that that price didn't include rolling stock). If I recall correctly the £55.6bn is at 2015 prices and I'm pretty sure that does include rolling stock. And I'm assuming the new suggestion of £106bn is at prices in some future year. (Obviously, costs have risen but not to the extent that the figures in that article imply)

Can anyone confirm my suspicions? If so I may have a hunt around for BBC complaints procedures.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
If I recall correctly the £55.6bn is at 2015 prices and I'm pretty sure that does include rolling stock. And I'm assuming the new suggestion of £106bn is at prices in some future year

Lord Berkeley, in his reports, specifically stated the £106bn is 2015 prices. He very clearly said the Oakervee report was written at 2015 prices.

Firstly there's the issue that the article describes the benefits of HS2 almost exclusively in terms of speed

Anyone would think that that's because HS2 Ltd have couched all the benefits in terms of speed, not capacity.

It's laughable really, anyone who reports on this whole fiasco neutrally is "biased".

Face it, your beloved HS2 is simply not worth the money. If Oakervee- former chair of HS2- can't make the case for it, who the hell can?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
does it include the rolling stock?

Yes, it did, including the "captive" trains that will now not be purchased.

As I've been saying for years, the big engineering companies that are behind the lobbying for HS2's big juicy contracts priced it low to get it through Parliament. Oldest trick in the book.

The Oakervee report is, by all accounts, priced in 2015 money.

I'll be astounded if we get change out of £150bn.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,246
Location
St Albans
Yes, it did, including the "captive" trains that will now not be purchased.

As I've been saying for years, the big engineering companies that are behind the lobbying for HS2's big juicy contracts priced it low to get it through Parliament. Oldest trick in the book.

The Oakervee report is, by all accounts, priced in 2015 money.
But the scope isn't, nor are the future predicted figures being bandied about , - including any totals that 'astound' you.
I'll be astounded if we get change out of £150bn.
'Captive' trains would probably be cheaper than the UK-only 'classic compatible' stock. A physically larger loading gauge in many ways makes the design cheaper.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
The FT report makes for grim reading for HS2 tubthumpers and tells us antis what we already knew (and confirms our judgment).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/307e3606-3ab7-11ea-a01a-bae547046735

FT copyright rules prevent me copying wholesale, but some choice cuts include:

The review led by Doug Oakervee, a former chairman of HS2, also recommends that work on phase 2 of the project from the West Midlands to Manchester and Leeds be paused for six months for a study into whether it could comprise a mix of conventional and high speed lines instead.

“Further work” is needed to assess the scheme’s impacts on regional growth and it is “hard” to say what economic benefits will result from building it. HS2 would need to be accompanied by investment in local transport and “transport investment alone will not ‘rebalance’ the UK economy,” it adds.

A number of central issues around construction remain unresolved. Contractors building the scheme have not yet agreed “acceptable” prices for the construction, while the existing design for Euston is “not satisfactory”.

There are also concerns over the project’s management with more scrutiny needed from the Treasury, and its Infrastructure Projects Authority, as well as the Department for Transport. “The review has not seen convincing evidence that HS2 Ltd, especially the phase one construction team, have the level of control and management of the construction normally associated with major projects,” it says.

That's about as scathing as a Government report will ever get.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
nor are the future predicted figures being bandied about

The £106bn is in 2015 figures, and estimated by Michael Byng, who wrote the official guidance on estimating infrastructure costs.

I don't think they'll manage to hit that figure, but that is my opinion.

'Captive' trains would probably be cheaper than the UK-only 'classic compatible' stock

Perhaps so, but if you can't run HS2 trains on classic lines then most of the alleged regional benefits go out the window.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,246
Location
St Albans
The £106bn is in 2015 figures, and estimated by Michael Byng, who wrote the official guidance on estimating infrastructure costs.

I don't think they'll manage to hit that figure, but that is my opinion.



Perhaps so, but if you can't run HS2 trains on classic lines then most of the alleged regional benefits go out the window.
This thread is about actual and projected costs.
 

daikilo

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Messages
1,623
Just heard Grant Shapps being interviewed on Sky News Live and he gave the impression that the decision will "come in weeks, not months" and will include "a comparison with alternatives". I presume this means he already has agreed projections of the expected need, including freight.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,764
Location
Yorkshire
Face it, your beloved HS2 is simply not worth the money. If Oakervee- former chair of HS2- can't make the case for it, who the hell can?
We already have a thread for discussion of this nature: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-are-people-opposed-to-hs2-and-other-hs2-discussion.177112

This thread is to discuss the actual contents of the Hs2 Review recommendation and is not to discuss why people think HS2 is or isn't worth the money.

There is no point in us having a separate thread if people are just going to use it to discuss what is already under discussion in an existing thread.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
I saw that BBC Article and - maybe someone could check/confirm, but to me the article looks so inaccurate/misleading that I'm wondering if there are any procedures to formally complain to the BBC about it.
<Snip>
Can anyone confirm my suspicions? If so I may have a hunt around for BBC complaints procedures.

The BBC have now opened a 'Have your say' on the article, which provides an opportunity to publicly comment on the accuracy of the article, and engage in discussion (e.g. factual correction) with the likely large numbers of people who will be posting negative comments about the scheme.

The BBC do also have the facility to complain (privately) about any of their content. But any time I've used it the response has been to the effect of 'thanks for your comment, but we don't agree' so I cannot recommend it as a productive use of anyone's time.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The BBC have now opened a 'Have your say' on the article, which provides an opportunity to publicly comment on the accuracy of the article, and engage in discussion (e.g. factual correction) with the likely large numbers of people who will be posting negative comments about the scheme.

The BBC do also have the facility to complain (privately) about any of their content. But any time I've used it the response has been to the effect of 'thanks for your comment, but we don't agree' so I cannot recommend it as a productive use of anyone's time.

One of the most futile things in this life is attempting to inject any reasoned, evidence based debate into the BBC Have Your Say section.... Not worth the bother.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
One of the most futile things in this life is attempting to inject any reasoned, evidence based debate into the BBC Have Your Say section.... Not worth the bother.

I wouldn't disagree. The main reason I mentioned HYS was that it is (in my experience) marginally less futile than using the BBC's complaints process.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
This thread is to discuss the actual contents of the Hs2 Review recommendation and is not to discuss why people think HS2 is or isn't worth the money.

The report says it is "hard" to justify the project, as I said. My comment, pointing out Oakervee as ex-chair of the project should be expected to spin this as positively as he can, is far more relavant than the one I was replying to, alleging bias by the BBC!

This thread is about actual and projected costs.

The actual projected cost is £106bn. A far cry from the original projected cost of £56bn. 100% inflation in costs and we've not even started construction yet, with contractors refusing to bid for the Euston rebuild as it is underfunded and an unsatisfactory design.

Not to mention a report that eviscerates HS2 Ltd for appalling project management.

Make no mistake, if the FT have fairly reported the report (and the FT usually avoid hyperbole and disingenuity), it is terrible for the whole project.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
he gave the impression that the decision will "come in weeks, not months"

They've been sitting on it since October, one would hope that after four months they'll have made their mind up.

Still, it's clear from the prevarication that whether it goes ahead will be a political decision not an economic one. With such an underwhelming appraisal of the project's finances, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm expecting the sunk-cost fallacy to rear its ugly head.
 

Verulamius

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2014
Messages
245
Remember that this is a DfT report with an Independent chair.

DfT will have significant input to the wording of the report.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,652
Location
Mold, Clwyd
If the contracts negotiated by the A-team are so bad, it doesn't give much optimism for the national infrastructure mega-projects coming down the track, whether they include HS2 or not.
It wouldn't be so bad if there was a shovel-ready alternative to go for (NPR etc).
If this HS2 project is cancelled/reviewed or otherwise deferred we face a 5-10 year hiatus while another project is developed and put through parliament.
Which is time for the infrastructure bonanza to run its course and all the money to have been spent elsewhere.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,441
Firstly there's the issue that the article describes the benefits of HS2 almost exclusively in terms of speed, with very little mention of the capacity improvements that are its real purpose - this gives a misleading impression of the purpose of HS2.

In the view of 99% of the population, HS2 IS exclusively about speed. That was how it was initially sold, and it's stuck. Most of the capacity benefits are achieved by phase 1 anyway - HS2 is a railway for London, and the extra commuter trains on the WCML only need phase 1.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
If phase 1 is all that is built, where does it end? Is there much point in building Curzon St station if all it handles is London traffic?
 

fegguk

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2012
Messages
173
Location
Hawick
Partially leak the document to a tame newspaper, then spin the message they want before anyone has a chance to read the report, examine it details and make an informed judgment on what it says. Lets have careful sniff before grabbing the bait being dangled by the Government.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,680
If phase 1 is all that is built, where does it end? Is there much point in building Curzon St station if all it handles is London traffic?

You might still want to get services out of New Street even if there isn’t Phase 2 track to run on. I imagine there are plenty of trains LNWR or XC etc could run through if the Avanti WC services aren’t there any more.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,216
Pm on Radio 4 interviewed a member of the committee. The government is spinning that the report is a draft version. It isn't. The committee delivered its final report at the end of October, and it's been sitting on the government's desk ever since.
 

Class83

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2012
Messages
494
Presumably a conventional line wouldn't cost that much less than high speed, there aren't a lot of examples, but the Borders Railway which was reopening an existing alignment cost around £10m a mile for mostly single track. So pausing phase 2 will end up with a question of give up altogether or build full high speed all the way.

Phase 1 (and probably 2a to Crewe) would generate a large part of the capacity increases, have there been any breakdowns of the costs between phase 1 and phase 2. It is possible that Land acquisition costs in the South East have eaten up most of the £8Billion which has already been spent.

So the questions are:
How much will it cost to complete only Phase 1? How bad is the politics of spending £8Bn on nothing?
How much more will it cost to complete Phase 2A as well? I think if they go ahead this is required or it's just silly.
If Phase 2B is to be abandoned, what improvements will the price difference fund? Options might be; Castlefield Corridor 4-track, North and South Transpennine electricfication, CLC electrification, more double track and higher speed limits in the Hope Valley. A huge rolling stock buy for the North?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,934
If phase 1 is all that is built, where does it end? Is there much point in building Curzon St station if all it handles is London traffic?
If they build all of Phase 1 then it ends at Handsacre, between Lichfield and Rugeley on the WCML.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,877
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
If the contracts negotiated by the A-team are so bad, it doesn't give much optimism for the national infrastructure mega-projects coming down the track, whether they include HS2 or not.
It wouldn't be so bad if there was a shovel-ready alternative to go for (NPR etc).
If this HS2 project is cancelled/reviewed or otherwise deferred we face a 5-10 year hiatus while another project is developed and put through parliament.
Which is time for the infrastructure bonanza to run its course and all the money to have been spent elsewhere.
Sadly - probably perfectly stated
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top