• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Building HS2 to Euston and Crewe could pay for itself, analysis finds

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tezza1978

Member
Joined
22 May 2020
Messages
261
Location
Warrington
HS2 north of Birmingham had parliamentary (and royal) approval but that didn't stop the former PM unilaterally scrapping it.
That's because Sunak is a moron in terms of his hatred of trains - and he listened to that idiot Gilligan who is still getting column inches in newspapers

Some rumours on Twitter that if he had won the election he was going to cancel the unfinished Phase 1 as well and stop all works (!!)

Anyway good news on Euston tunneling as expected. I'll wager that the 11 platform design will get resurrected with the aid of private funding/levies
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

chris2

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2023
Messages
150
Location
Southampton
Great news re the tunnelling.

In terms of the station, I’m still a bit confused about why we haven’t gone back to the original, 11 platform design as it was devised as a two stage plan and I don’t really understand why we can’t just build it up to the end of the first stage.

In that plan, stage one began by removing a few of the existing Euston platforms (done already) and clearing the land to the west of the station (also done already, with much local pain I might add), then building a six platform station in the newly cleared land. This station would have been built to serve phase 1 services.

The second stage was then to demolish more of the existing station and build the additional 5 platforms in between the new HS2 platforms and the remaining WCML platforms. This would serve phase 2 train services.

You can see a visualisation of this here.

Can anyone explain the reasons why we don’t just get on and go ahead with the original plan up to the end of stage one? That would leave you with the platforms you need for phase 1 but wouldn’t stop you doing the phase two project in future.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,544
Great news re the tunnelling.

In terms of the station, I’m still a bit confused about why we haven’t gone back to the original, 11 platform design as it was devised as a two stage plan and I don’t really understand why we can’t just build it up to the end of the first stage.

In that plan, stage one began by removing a few of the existing Euston platforms (done already) and clearing the land to the west of the station (also done already, with much local pain I might add), then building a six platform station in the newly cleared land. This station would have been built to serve phase 1 services.

The second stage was then to demolish more of the existing station and build the additional 5 platforms in between the new HS2 platforms and the remaining WCML platforms. This would serve phase 2 train services.

You can see a visualisation of this here.

Can anyone explain the reasons why we don’t just get on and go ahead with the original plan up to the end of stage one? That would leave you with the platforms you need for phase 1 but wouldn’t stop you doing the phase two project in future.
Because it costs more than the government is willing to pay? The budget for HS2 Euston was set at £2.6bn. The last estimate for the 11-platform design was £4.4bn.
 

chris2

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2023
Messages
150
Location
Southampton
Because it costs more than the government is willing to pay? The budget for HS2 Euston was set at £2.6bn. The last estimate for the 11-platform design was £4.4bn.
Yes but given that at this point a load of money has already been spent on land acquisition, demolition, early works, design etc, how much extra would it now be to build the stage one station according to the plans already put together and paid for? Would you get it under 2.6b from this point now?

Money aside, are there other technical reasons why building the original plan up to the end of stage one would not be a good idea? Lots of folk talk about six platforms being terrible because it forever limits the capacity. I get this argument insofar as it goes, but if the original plan to start with six still accommodates future expansion, what’s the issue?
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
2,626
Location
Nottingham
Money aside, are there other technical reasons why building the original plan up to the end of stage one would not be a good idea? Lots of folk talk about six platforms being terrible because it forever limits the capacity. I get this argument insofar as it goes, but if the original plan to start with six still accommodates future expansion, what’s the issue?
IF the design starts with six and accommodates future expansion, then that's fine. I think the issue is that with property developers now in the driving seat we may find that any space for future expansion gets built on with housing instead. And the original design seems to cost £4.4bn or more, which seems an awful lot for a station.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,584
Can anyone explain the reasons why we don’t just get on and go ahead with the original plan up to the end of stage one? That would leave you with the platforms you need for phase 1 but wouldn’t stop you doing the phase two project in future.
Because it was axed for enormous cost growth.

The latest cost that was admitted to was £4.4bn, given the cost growth in later designs this was almost certainly still a major underestimate.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,544
Yes but given that at this point a load of money has already been spent on land acquisition, demolition, early works, design etc, how much extra would it now be to build the stage one station according to the plans already put together and paid for? Would you get it under 2.6b from this point now?

Money aside, are there other technical reasons why building the original plan up to the end of stage one would not be a good idea? Lots of folk talk about six platforms being terrible because it forever limits the capacity. I get this argument insofar as it goes, but if the original plan to start with six still accommodates future expansion, what’s the issue?
The problem with a phased build is that the development opportunities (which the government is hoping will offset the cost) are above the station building. So you're likely to need to build out the entire shell to provide the platform for those. Which is going to be a major chunk of the cost.
Only fitting out half the HS2 station isn't likely to save significant sums to get down under the budget.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,626
Can anyone explain the reasons why we don’t just get on and go ahead with the original plan up to the end of stage one? That would leave you with the platforms you need for phase 1 but wouldn’t stop you doing the phase two project in future.
Because it costs more than the government is willing to pay? The budget for HS2 Euston was set at £2.6bn. The last estimate for the 11-platform design was £4.4bn.
"Why we don’t just get on and go ahead with the original plan up to the end of stage one?"

The government was originally scared of the added cost of a raft on top of the HS2 station that would enable over-site development. This matters because HMT would include the extra cost in their assessment but not the direct and indirect income streams from over site development (indirect e.g. business rates from new commercial premises) resulting in a poor BCR for a station concept with over-site development (unless the whole development is framed in a very different way).

The existing concepts have been based on no raft and commercial over-site development hence there isn't a current plan and serious work on a new concept with raft allowing significant oversite development only started in earnest/detail a few weeks ago.

Also note NR and other's comments on Euston redevelopment in the recent Euston crowding issue announcements
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,045
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Can anyone explain the reasons why we don’t just get on and go ahead with the original plan up to the end of stage one? That would leave you with the platforms you need for phase 1 but wouldn’t stop you doing the phase two project in future.
Because the "stakeholders" (developers, local authorities) wanted more over-site development to help pay for the new station.
That compromised the original design.
The two-stage build of the new station was also thrown out in order to build it in one go, to save money, but it was still too expensive.
Sunak threw that plan out too, took the design away from HS2 Ltd and called the developers to build it with private money.
We now have a decision on the approach tunnels, so a station at Euston will be built.
Old Euston (the NR station) is also now in the spotlight for poor operation, especially now HS2 has taken its high numbered platforms away.
Hopefully a sane, coordinated and affordable rebuild will emerge.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,626
The problem with a phased build is that the development opportunities (which the government is hoping will offset the cost) are above the station building. So you're likely to need to build out the entire shell to provide the platform for those. Which is going to be a major chunk of the cost.
Only fitting out half the HS2 station isn't likely to save significant sums to get down under the budget.
Exactly - The oversite developments needs more than just 6 platform station built to get anything above started.

Given the stalled progress on the HS station NR has already lost more footprint than anticipated at this stage of HS build for the existing station so a first phase of more than 6 platform might makes sense e.g. proceed with element of the 7th and 8th where space allows.

What might makes sense is to get rid of middle siding 2 and install a platform face along side middle siding/middle siding 1 to replace the current P16 and allow more width for existing station and HS station construction. Some extra cost for a new platform for few years but it is likely to be worthwhile give when we now are.

At this stage starting more preliminary works on the station site than currently agreed makes sense. The lowest basement floor level of any design is likely to be 12-14m below current track level hence starting to remove existing soil / demolition material (preferably initially by train from the HS2 siding) will help.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
17,624
Old Euston (the NR station) is also now in the spotlight for poor operation, especially now HS2 has taken its high numbered platforms away.
Hopefully a sane, coordinated and affordable rebuild will emerge.
Taking 17 and 18 out hasn't really caused a major impact.
 
Joined
2 Feb 2019
Messages
547
The problem with a phased build is that the development opportunities (which the government is hoping will offset the cost) are above the station building. So you're likely to need to build out the entire shell to provide the platform for those. Which is going to be a major chunk of the cost.
Only fitting out half the HS2 station isn't likely to save significant sums to get down under the budget.
Andrew McNaughton in Green Signals episode 6 at around 54 minutes from the start makes clear that building above HS2 Euston Station would greatly increase the cost of the station. This surely makes doing this to attempt to offset the cost of building the station self defeating. I am also not sure if building above the station would affect the protected line of sight from Primrose Hill to St Pauls Cathedral shown on the following City of Westminster policies map. Surely it would cost the Government less to directly fund the building of HS2 Euston Station without development directly above the station and this would be the only way to ensure any planning approval is not complicated by the protected line of sight.
 
Last edited:

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
4,017
Location
University of Birmingham
Surely the solution at Euston is to build a simple, functional concrete box? A bit like the new station in Belgrade (which admittedly took a bit longer than HS2 will!) - a bland concrete slab, upon which a station building has recently been built.
Google Streetview image from 2015

We don't need architectural awards, or "world-beating", just something that works.
Incidentally, how much is Curzon Street costing? That's pretty much entirely elevated, on a site which has needed a reasonable amount of clearance, 7 platforms. I really don't understand how Euston could cost £4.4billion - that seems remarkably expensive. For context, Wien Hbf, which opened 10 years ago, cost around €1 billion, and I'd have thought that cost includes at least some of the fairly substantial track remodelling and flyovers which were built as part of the project.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,544
Andrew McNaughton in Green Signals episode 6 at around 54 minutes from the start makes clear that building above HS2 Euston Station would greatly increase the cost of the station. This surely makes doing this to attempt to offset the cost of building the station self defeating. I am also not sure if building above the station would affect the protected line of sight from Primrose Hill to St Pauls Cathedral shown on the following City of Westminster policies map. Surely it would cost the Government less to directly fund the building of HS2 Euston Station without development directly above the station and this would be the only way to ensure any planning approval is not complicated by the protected line of sight.
Yes, it would cost more to build the station in a manner that allowed development above. But the question is whether you gain more from selling that development than the additional costs.
A HUGE portfolio of land worth an estimated £4billion will be sold to a private developer after HS2 construction work finishes, officials confirmed to the New Journal this week.

Lendlease, an international property firm, will be given first option to buy the entire 54-acre site above and around the new Euston high-speed railway terminus, when the two phases of development are completed in 2026 and 2033.
From back in 2018 suggested the rights were worth £4bn. It seems unlikely to cost that much extra to build the station in a suitable way, when the original estimate for the whole station was £4.4bn.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
2,626
Location
Nottingham
From back in 2018 suggested the rights were worth £4bn. It seems unlikely to cost that much extra to build the station in a suitable way, when the original estimate for the whole station was £4.4bn.
I suspect that the developers are working on getting the government to abolish rules about protected views from Primrose Parliament Hill to the Houses of Parliament. These limit the height of any development at Euston. If these went, in the name of economic growth and "cutting red tape", then the Euston site would be worth many billions more than it would otherwise be.
 
Last edited:

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
3,416
So what makes building a station ~2x bigger in London cost ~8x more?

(Comments about the relative attractiveness and desirability of the respective cities notwithstanding!)
Over £1bn of the proposed cost was for the connections to the underground, which entailed rebuilding pretty much everything below ground as well as connecting to Euston Square
 

Tezza1978

Member
Joined
22 May 2020
Messages
261
Location
Warrington
Over £1bn of the proposed cost was for the connections to the underground, which entailed rebuilding pretty much everything below ground as well as connecting to Euston Square
I think that's going to be still needed. Euston Underground station is simply not fit for purpose given the numbers using it, add in HS2 passengers and....well....

The penny pinching in terms of cancelling underground access to Euston Square will also hopefully be reversed. That seemed a stupid idea given that adding a travelator underground in a foot tunnel will spread passenger numbers out, plenty more people than now will be happy to get off there rather than traipse down the busy road in the rain/wind/with luggage in hand...
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,068
I am also not sure if building above the station would affect the protected line of sight from Primrose Hill to St Pauls Cathedral shown on the following City of Westminster policies map.

It does.



£570 million

So what makes building a station ~2x bigger in London cost ~8x more?

(Comments about the relative attractiveness and desirability of the respective cities notwithstanding!)

Careful with what you are comparing. Gettign a straight like for liek comparison is tricky because of the very different circmstances at each location.


I suspect that the developers are working on getting the government to abolish rules about protected views from Primrose Parliament Hill to the Houses of Parliament. These limit the height of any development at Euston. If these went, in the name of economic growth and "cutting red tape", then the Euston site would be worth many billions more than it would otherwise be.

No chance. It needs primary legislation, and that is not going to happen.
 

plugwash

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2015
Messages
1,797
add in HS2 passengers
Add in new hs2 passengers (that were not abstracted from the WCML) but subtract ex-wcml passengers who chose to change at old oak common instead.

Will the impact of HS2 in it's western-leg only form on Euston underground station really be that great.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,068
Will the impact of HS2 in it's western-leg only form on Euston underground station really be that great.

Of course it will. As you have to add in all the extra passnegers from the (higher capacity) services into Euston that take the paths of those that transfer to HS2.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
2,626
Location
Nottingham
Sounds fairly cheap compared to the cost of redeveloping St Pancras, London Bridge and Reading. Suppose building a new station on a brown field site is cheaper than rebuilding a major operating station.
That's the main civil engineering contract. There will be other costs to install the track and railway systems. And maybe station fit out too?
 

Sir Felix Pole

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
1,345
Location
Wilmslow
Meanwhile, in Spain, the unlovely Madrid Chamartin is being extensively rebuilt; construction is underway at Atocha on low level platforms on the recently opened standard gauge line under the city. Barcelona is having a new, large, high speed station at Sagrera to relieve pressure on Sants.

Last week I travelled on the new high speed line from Gallica to the capital - the equivalent of building a line from Cornwall to London across Bodmin Moor and Dartmoor to London. Yet we are incapable of building a line to either Manchester or Euston. Depressing isn't it?
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
14,001
Location
UK
Here is the article:
The price of taking the High Speed 2 rail link into London’s Euston and building a new station on the site has risen to more than £7.5bn, according to confidential government documents that throw new light on the spiralling costs of the project.

In early 2023, the National Audit Office nearly doubled its estimate of costs to £4.8bn for the new HS2 station at Euston alone — excluding other elements of the project including the tunnels and the redevelopment of the existing station.

But a paper written by the Department for Transport later in 2023, marked “official — sensitive: commercial” spells out the full cost of the HS2 Euston project for the first time.

The DfT’s paper puts a £6bn price tag on the new HS2 station and tunnels. Another NAO report from earlier this year suggests a further £1.5bn is needed to rebuild the existing Euston station next door, taking the total cost to £7.5bn.

DfT’s estimates for the cost of the entire Euston project are based on 2019 prices — the amount is now closer to £9.4bn after accounting for inflation, according to Financial Times’ calculations.

The question of how to pay for Euston is a political challenge for the government. It is struggling to keep costs down on the overall HS2 project linking London and Birmingham, which is estimated at £67bn but is set to be revised upwards in the coming months.

Tony Travers, public policy expert at the London School of Economics, said the Euston project’s costs had become impossible to control since work started in 2017.

He said: “It is extraordinary — and not in a good way — that the project could knock down people’s homes and undermine local businesses, taking over the surrounding environment in the process, and almost a decade later still not have a clear plan or budget for such a crucially-located site in one of the world’s wealthiest cities.”

Former Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak announced in October 2023 he was cancelling the northern leg of HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester, on cost grounds.

At the same time he gave the go-ahead to the Euston redevelopment, announcing a new public-private partnership that he hoped could save taxpayers £6.5bn on the Euston scheme.

The DfT documents appear to contradict that claim, suggesting such a partnership would produce “much more modest savings” of between £1.4bn and £2bn.

The Sunak government’s claim that £6.5bn could be raised from the private sector “was pretty wild, it was hard to find anyone who believed that at the time”, said one government figure.

Travers said: “Even significant property development at Euston . . . would produce — in the context of HS2’s final cost — only a small amount of money.”

Sunak also claimed at the time that 10,000 homes could be built on the site but the DfT documents say Lendlease, the government’s partner for the development above and around the station, is planning for a lower number of 2,000 to 3,000 flats.

In theory 8,000 flats could be built but only if the entire site was used for residential property — making it less commercially viable, according to the documents.

One ally of Sunak said it had been the DfT that put forward the estimates of £6.5bn savings and 10,000 homes. “Proper process was followed and the numbers given were provided by the departments,” he said.

The documents say that striking a new public-private arrangement on the site would require the existing contract with Lendlease to be renegotiated.

Andrea Ruckstuhl, group executive at Lendlease, said the developer was planning “to bring forward new buildings and public spaces at Euston through a planning application and partnerships with investors”.

Euston is overcrowded and struggles to cope with 33mn passengers a year, compared to the 20mn it was meant to handle when it was last redesigned in 1968. The projected influx of passengers from HS2 will add to pressure on the station.

More than £2bn has been spent on the Euston project, according to a National Audit Office report in 2022.

The DfT said it would not comment on leaked documents but did not deny the figures.

“Taking HS2 to Euston is a key part of realising HS2’s contribution to national economic growth, which is why this government confirmed funding for tunnelling from Old Oak Common to Euston in the Budget,” it said. “We are working at pace to explore a range of options for Euston, including funding, and we will set out further details in due course.”
 

Palmerston

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2024
Messages
45
Location
Hampshire
Previous threads had suggested the Labour opposition (at the time) might hope HS2 got cancelled so they didn't have deal with it. Sounds very plausible.

Just because Euston seems incredibly expensive doesn't mean building HS2b to at least Crewe isn't sensible. But that might be the political decision taken with a very short-term view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top