• 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 construction updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Realfish

Member
Joined
15 Aug 2012
Messages
266
Simon Jenkins alternates between predicting and demanding the demise of HS2 in the Guardian virtually monthly...

Which reminds me that most of the agitation against HS2 comes from London and the privileged South-east (as it did with the ill-fated North of London Eurostar services). And the Guardian, once of Manchester, is now little more than the local paper for the North London intelligentsia and the epicentre of self interest and sneering condescension.

To cancel HS2 would be a(nother) national humiliation and would finish the Tories from the Midlands, northwards.
 

Maurice3000

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2013
Messages
61
Location
London
Which reminds me that most of the agitation against HS2 comes from London and the privileged South-east (as it did with the ill-fated North of London Eurostar services). And the Guardian, once of Manchester, is now little more than the local paper for the North London intelligentsia and the epicentre of self interest and sneering condescension.

To cancel HS2 would be a(nother) national humiliation and would finish the Tories from the Midlands, northwards.
You may be on to something about Londoners not caring much about HS2. I always shudder when I hear Northern critics of HS2 describe it as a project for "the South". Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and even Liverpool are going to benefit greatly from HS2 and they are by no means cities in "the South".

If you'd ask the average person here in London where they would prefer the next high speed line to go to they would probably say Brighton. If you'd ask the average person in the South where they would prefer the next high speed line to go they would probably say a line between Bristol and/or Exeter, Bath, Swindon, Oxford, Reading and London.

I believe HS2 is desperately needed to fix the UK's lack of good long distance infrastructure and fix our north/south imbalance issues. I also don't believe it should be a case of choosing between HS2 or HS3/NPR. Both are a very sensible investment in the long term (100+ years) economic infrastructure for the country. Both are a sensible reason to borrow money as it will pay itself back.
 

marko2

Member
Joined
28 May 2016
Messages
62
The interesting figure is not how much of the project budget is spent but the liabilities for those parts not yet spent.

A large number of the construction contracts for Phase 1 are already awarded.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
In that piece, Simon Jenkins gives some figures for what has been spent - e.g. £ 600 million on consultants - and predicts what it's going to cost. He states very clearly what he thinks it's all about: a Cameron vanity project. He does not need to demonstrate what might be involved in building a railway line because that's irrelevant to his point.

You may not find his thoughts interesting, but that's because he does not agree with you. Other people might find his arguments very interesting.
Respectfully plenty of people manage to disagree with me without being as catastrophically ill-informed as Jenkins. He has absolutely no need to know anything about building a railway, except that he keeps writing about that in a national newspaper.

In spite of the implication that the North doesn't want this and would prefer HS3, all the public statements make it clear that they need both. Leeds to Manchester is slow, but addressable through conventional rail upgrades. The same is not true of Leeds or Manchester to Birmingham, or Manchester to London.

Constantly repeating made up numbers, ignoring sunk costs in your cost-benefit analysis and suggesting that it would be sane for the premium trains from Birmingham to terminate in the middle of nowhere in West London are not good looks. Squealing about a moderate spend on expert consultants is also not smart. In spite of his preference being to repeat made-up clap-trap, I'm sure he'd be the first to complain if HS2 decided to just wing it without evidence
 
Last edited:

mcmad

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2015
Messages
977
He also falls for the typical mistake (particularly on here) that if HS2 is cancelled then the money is somehow automatically allocated to another rail project.

Not seeing any arguments as to why it should be cancelled other than he doesn't like it personally.
 

Skie

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2008
Messages
1,067
Sensible (to me anyway) option is to build phase 1, scrap phase 2 and instead run the top of the Y between major two cities on each side rather than through them to a central station. Then use the savings that creates to make NPR viable and build it at the same time to connect east-west and create the stations in the cities it serves.

The current phase 2 proposal on the western leg requires an inordinate amount of tunnelling and infrastructure just to get to Manchester and creates a line that, if NPR happens too, is in a bad location with a station built that can only serve the south and so likely required a new NPR station in Manchester. Running a line between Manchester and Liverpool would be cheaper to do and much easier to connect to. Any new NPR stations built on an east-west line would then also become HS2 stations. Increases the cost benefit ratio if you can re-use line and stations, and avoids a crazy dog-leg just to satisfy the whims of an ex-chancellor.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
The interesting figure is not how much of the project budget is spent but the liabilities for those parts not yet spent.

A large number of the construction contracts for Phase 1 are already awarded.

They are, but not at full value, and not for the construction part, yet.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
They are, but not at full value, and not for the construction part, yet.
Quite a lot of construction has been paid for, albeit not the biggest packages. While it is true that not even half of it is spent, if you're considering cancelling you need to run the cost-benefit for doing so on the costs you can still save, rather than on the whole amount.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There is a piece in the Guardian today by Simon Jenkins which points toward the cancellation of HS2.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/16/scrap-hs2-north-hs3-rail-commuter-journeys
Insiders talking to Channel 4’s Dispatches team were virtually agreed it might not proceed beyond Birmingham, undermining its cost-benefit value.
"virtually agreed it might" doesn't sound very convincing.
Cancellation would enable Truss to press the go button on HS3, and produce instant ecstasy. She would be feted from the Humber to the Mersey.
Truss or Jenkins or both are seriously underestimating what the Tory party would have to do to get some serious support in the North. The people blame them for austerity and the politicians blame then for Brexit, both of which have or will hit the North hard. Not to mention a legacy of neglect going back at least to 1979. Not to mention that NPR requires the construction of large chunks of HS2 phase 2 anyway.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Quite a lot of construction has been paid for, albeit not the biggest packages. While it is true that not even half of it is spent, if you're considering cancelling you need to run the cost-benefit for doing so on the costs you can still save, rather than on the whole amount.
It may be that the contracts have break points so that HS2/DfT has to agree before they commit to each tranche of spending.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Quite a lot of construction has been paid for, albeit not the biggest packages. While it is true that not even half of it is spent, if you're considering cancelling you need to run the cost-benefit for doing so on the costs you can still save, rather than on the whole amount.

No it hasn’t. None of the construction has been paid for, because nothing has yet been constructed. In all my years of involvement in railway construction, I have never seen a contract where a contractor is paid for something until it is actually built (at least in part).

What has been paid for is the work done to date, and that includes a lot of design, mobilisation and enabling works (land purchase, demolition, utilities, highways, etc). And contracts have been let for future construction, but I expect these to be typical construction contracts with work instructed in at agreed prices when an acceptable understanding of design and risk is achieved. The ‘notice to proceed’ is expected later this year.

Nevertheless, I agree that the analysis of the business case is calculated on future costs and benefits; sunk costs are not included.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
And that is the important bit, until the notice to proceed is given nothing on a major scale is going to happen.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,553
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Simon Jenkins alternates between predicting and demanding the demise of HS2 in the Guardian virtually monthly without ever demonstrating even the slightest grasp of what it's there for, what's already been spent, what the costs might be outside of the number he read last week on the Stop HS2 newsletter, or what might be involved generally in building a railway line.
Liz Truss's posturing may be of interest, but Jenkins' thoughts on the topic really aren't.

Simon Jenkins was a board member for British Rail 1979-90, and for London Transport 1984-86.
He has had other senior public sector appointments (eg at English Heritage).
So he knows a thing or two about the railway and particularly its architecture, physical assets and its impact on the landscape.
He is also a provocative journalist, as his HS2 pieces demonstrate.

I don't agree with him on HS2, but his pieces are worth reading and there's a point there somewhere.
Nobody is comfortable with seemingly unaccountable quasi-public bodies spending shed-loads of money on ill-defined projects.
It's vital that HS2 Ltd opens up with the budget and spend profiles, and also project risks, for public scrutiny.
Otherwise we'll have another Crossrail on our hands.
I would particularly like HS2 Ltd to demonstrate how its infrastructure will work within the national rail network (ie integrated with Network Rail, ORR etc).
It seems too much like a law unto itself at the moment.

It's no surprise at all that a large sum is being spent on consultants.
It's how mega-projects work, and it secures their buy-in to long-term design decisions.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
Simon Jenkins was a board member for British Rail 1979-90, and for London Transport 1984-86.
He has had other senior public sector appointments (eg at English Heritage).
So he knows a thing or two about the railway and particularly its architecture, physical assets and its impact on the landscape.
He is also a provocative journalist, as his HS2 pieces demonstrate.
I was aware of his membership of the board. Prue Leith was also on the board in that period as they drew on a wealth of experience from across industry. I'd suggest that whatever he gained from a non-exec role that ended 30 years ago is possibly not standing him in particularly good stead to comment right now.

I do agree that the project needs proper oversight, and is probably at significant risk of going over budget and/or not achieving all of its stated objectives, but that just means the project needs good external oversight both from within the government and the press.

Unfortunately instead of doing any useful oversight, or people like Jenkins persistently drag the discussion back over to the tediously well-furrowed question of whether it should happen at all, and jump at literally anything that can be twisted to support that demand. Jenkins will still be demanding the cancellation of the project when all that's left to do is buy some scissors and cut the ribbon.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I would particularly like HS2 Ltd to demonstrate how its infrastructure will work within the national rail network (ie integrated with Network Rail, ORR etc).
It seems too much like a law unto itself at the moment.

It's no surprise at all that a large sum is being spent on consultants.
It's how mega-projects work, and it secures their buy-in to long-term design decisions.
There is plenty on the HS2 website about integration with the national network, including links at places such as Crewe and south of Chesterfield, and I believe the design allows for the junctions that permit use by future NPR and possibly other regional services.

HS2 would do themselves a favour if they replaced overall figures on "consultants" with a breakdown, which is likely to show most of the spend going on design work by consulting engineers, rather than the sort of expensive management consultancy the word tends to be associated with these days.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
There is plenty on the HS2 website about integration with the national network, including links at places such as Crewe and south of Chesterfield, and I believe the design allows for the junctions that permit use by future NPR and possibly other regional services.

HS2 would do themselves a favour if they replaced overall figures on "consultants" with a breakdown, which is likely to show most of the spend going on design work by consulting engineers, rather than the sort of expensive management consultancy the word tends to be associated with these days.

There’s been a hell of a lot spent on consultation and consents work too, and this is quite a specialised area. Preparing all the detail for a hybrid bill is phenomenally intricate: detail drawings, explanations, development and assessment of alternatives and counterfactual evidence for any specific petition (objector), recording all contact with every single person or organisation affected, etc etc. This isn’t work by consulting engineers, but neither are they management consultants.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
Which reminds me that most of the agitation against HS2 comes from London and the privileged South-east . . . .
Not in this forum where the persistent critics of HS2 are all from outside London. Most Londoners are indifferent to HS2: they don't support it but they don't waste their time agitating against it. They know the Bill has the Queen's signature and the project is going ahead.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
If you look at the statistics prepared by Paul Bigland, most of the support for objecting groups comes from Buckinghamshire and surrounding areas that the route passes through but (for very good reason) has no station.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
Did anything happen about the platform heights in the end?

Is HS2 still trying to force the EU to accept an idiotic platform height decision?
 

Brush 4

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2018
Messages
502
Is HS2 legally bound to go ahead though? Apart from financial, what other penalties might there be? The spending decision for construction has been delayed until next year. I think the Gov want to wriggle out of it but, are trying to work out the best way to reduce opposition. Crossrail has unnerved them and they have lost the conviction needed. There may be more Portishead style reopening announcements to cover their as it were, tracks when the torrent of criticism starts. I'm not convinced the Gov want it, until construction actually commences.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Did anything happen about the platform heights in the end?

Is HS2 still trying to force the EU to accept an idiotic platform height decision?
Why is it idiotic? Having the platform level with the floor allows wheelchair users but also many others to board and alight much more quickly at stations on the high-speed route. I can't see any way that it would be a detriment at classic stations either.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
Why is it idiotic? Having the platform level with the floor allows wheelchair users but also many others to board and alight much more quickly at stations on the high-speed route. I can't see any way that it would be a detriment at classic stations either.

As I calculated in a previous thread on the topic, the adoption of a very high level platform like 1300mm or 1200mm with a GC loading gauge effectively renders the use of practical double decker trains impossible, forever.

Using 915mm might still allow double decks in a GC loading gauge, but 760mm would be best from that perspective.

Flat boarding is easily possible on a 915mm platform, and indeed on a 760mm platform.
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
The analysis shows that dwell time is very important to overall capacity and performance (especially at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange) and a level floor inside the units if key to achieving this.
The number of additional passengers you can get on double deck unit is actually quite small especially when you lose decent overhead luggage rack space which you then have to compensate for by losing floor space.
When you look at Pax / hour with planned infrastructure, the level floor ~ 1200mm wins in capacity terms.
The space under a 1200mm floor is also needed for all the equipment especially as the desire is for a flexible open passenger space so the interior layout that can be reconfigured and the space used most efficiently (and no power cars).

(Don't ask how I know!)
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,066
No it hasn’t. None of the construction has been paid for, because nothing has yet been constructed. In all my years of involvement in railway construction, I have never seen a contract where a contractor is paid for something until it is actually built (at least in part).

What has been paid for is the work done to date, and that includes a lot of design, mobilisation and enabling works (land purchase, demolition, utilities, highways, etc). And contracts have been let for future construction, but I expect these to be typical construction contracts with work instructed in at agreed prices when an acceptable understanding of design and risk is achieved. The ‘notice to proceed’ is expected later this year.

Nevertheless, I agree that the analysis of the business case is calculated on future costs and benefits; sunk costs are not included.
Depends on your definition of "construction". Enabling works such as a rather hefty junction on the M25 may not put steel rails on the ground but a lot of people would still describe them as "construction".
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
The analysis shows that dwell time is very important to overall capacity and performance (especially at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange) and a level floor inside the units if key to achieving this.
The appropriate EU rail authorities disagree and note that a level floor within the vehicle is the primary constraint. They have published numerous expert opinions on this fact.
They declare that level boarding is by far the most important factor, and that can be achieved with the existing standards.
Not many people actually move between carriages on modern trains, they board and stay where they boarded, especially on commuter trains (Which is effectively what this is)


The number of additional passengers you can get on double deck unit is actually quite small especially when you lose decent overhead luggage rack space which you then have to compensate for by losing floor space.
How many overhead luggage rack spaces do things like Class 185s have near the doors, for example?
Overhead luggage space is a dying thing on modern British trains, given the short journeys (the average captive journey will be under an hour) the lower deck of a double deck train would likely be fitted out like the vestibules in a Class 185, small amounts of seating and large amounts of standing space.

When you look at Pax / hour with planned infrastructure, the level floor ~ 1200mm wins in capacity terms.
Using somewhat heroic assumptions on the part of HS2, which numerous EU rail authorities have repeatedly attacked.

The space under a 1200mm floor is also needed for all the equipment especially as the desire is for a flexible open passenger space so the interior layout that can be reconfigured and the space used most efficiently (and no power cars).
It is somewhat telling that the only EU rail operator to try double deck high speed trains has ordered nothing but double decks since!

The capacity of an Avelia Horizon is supposedly something on the order of 740 on a 200m unit, as opposed to ~450 or so for a 200m Velaro-D.
The shrinking size of the equipment on board the train as technology improves is a rather beneficial part of this.

To be honest I agree, with EU rail authorities, that HS2 has chosen a specification designed specifically to render all rolling stock for the service entirely bespoke, so that they can de-facto exempt themselves from open access and other provisions.

The adoption of a GC loading gauge is entirely pointless unless a platform height is chosen that will permit double decker trains.
If Old Oak Common is not capable of handling standard TSI trains, then additional platforms should have been added to keep within the specification.

All expectations are that double decks have 30-40% more capacity than single decks, and unless improving OOC and Birmingham International would increase entire project costs by that fraction, which it won't, then this is a bad economic decision.

EDIT:

Does anyone know what is happening though?
I have to assume the decision has been made either way, given that construction has already started?
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
The appropriate EU rail authorities disagree and note that a level floor within the vehicle is the primary constraint. They have published numerous expert opinions on this fact.
They declare that level boarding is by far the most important factor, and that can be achieved with the existing standards.
Not many people actually move between carriages on modern trains, they board and stay where they boarded, especially on commuter trains (Which is effectively what this is)



How many overhead luggage rack spaces do things like Class 185s have near the doors, for example?
Overhead luggage space is a dying thing on modern British trains, given the short journeys (the average captive journey will be under an hour) the lower deck of a double deck train would likely be fitted out like the vestibules in a Class 185, small amounts of seating and large amounts of standing space.


Using somewhat heroic assumptions on the part of HS2, which numerous EU rail authorities have repeatedly attacked.


It is somewhat telling that the only EU rail operator to try double deck high speed trains has ordered nothing but double decks since!

The capacity of an Avelia Horizon is supposedly something on the order of 740 on a 200m unit, as opposed to ~450 or so for a 200m Velaro-D.
The shrinking size of the equipment on board the train as technology improves is a rather beneficial part of this.

To be honest I agree, with EU rail authorities, that HS2 has chosen a specification designed specifically to render all rolling stock for the service entirely bespoke, so that they can de-facto exempt themselves from open access and other provisions.

The adoption of a GC loading gauge is entirely pointless unless a platform height is chosen that will permit double decker trains.
If Old Oak Common is not capable of handling standard TSI trains, then additional platforms should have been added to keep within the specification.

All expectations are that double decks have 30-40% more capacity than single decks, and unless improving OOC and Birmingham International would increase entire project costs by that fraction, which it won't, then this is a bad economic decision.

I notice everyone is agreeing the level floor inside the unit is essential, you don't get more level than completely level!

Their expert opinions aren't quite so expert when you look at the detail! The Japanese and Chinese have the right approach and we are following that rather than adopting a backward compatible Europeans standard that we don't need to be compatible with...

HS2 platforms have to be optimised for both Captive and Classic compatible units, they can't be looked at in isolation. Due to the very restricted lower UK structure gauge you need a high floor to maximise passenger space on classic compatible units.

Velaro D and Novo are compatible with 1200mm platforms so there is nothing stopping son European HS trains through running if pigs start flying!
[Not Duplex TGV though]

Have another good look at the last line of my previous post...
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
I notice everyone is agreeing the level floor inside the unit is essential, you don't get more level than completely level!

Is it?
Level boarding is important, level floor between vehicles is much less important.
And level boarding is easily obtainable on these platform heights, as Talgo has demonstrated.

Their expert opinions aren't quite so expert when you look at the detail!

The detail is pretty compelling.
HS2 is justified on the basis of increased capacity but they throw away huge capacity gains, apparently simply to save a pair of extra platforms at two stations.......

They sell the idea of captive trains in terms of standard EU high speed sets, then decide to adopt a bespoke specification that isn't compatible.

The Japanese and Chinese have the right approach and we are following that rather than adopting a backward compatible Europeans standard that we don't need to be compatible with...

The HS2 approach is nothing like the Japanese one, the trains are rather narrow for that to be the case!
The Japanese are also not a fan of joining up formations of identical trainsets - they tend to prefer single uniform units, for example the 16-car Tokaido shinkansen sets.
HS2 platforms have to be optimised for both Captive and Classic compatible units, they can't be looked at in isolation. Due to the very restricted lower UK structure gauge you need a high floor to maximise passenger space on classic compatible units.
Classic Compatible routes will carry a small fraction of the passengers once Phase 2 opens, and this number will further decline as projects such as HS3 are carried through.
Optimising these trains to get step free access at one end of these journeys, by sacrificing a major capacity gain on the bulk of journeys on the system is the definition of madness.
Also it is likely that much of the floor area you are talking about losing can be regained through clever use of the interior space, and whether you require an entirely flat interior is an interesting question. Again the Class 185 with it's dual nature comes to mind.

Velaro D and Novo are compatible with 1200mm platforms so there is nothing stopping son European HS trains through running if pigs start flying!
[Not Duplex TGV though]

Let's just exclude the most succesful modern high speed trainset family in Europe?
Have another good look at the last line of my previous post...
The fact remains that HS2 has had to make several attempts to gain this derogation and as far as I can tell it has still not been granted. Indeed an Under Secretary of State is in Hansard as saying there are no derogations and are not expected to be any.

EDIT:

And this high platform heigth is only a major issue because despite deviation from existing standards in that, they refuse to deviate in terms of height of the loading gauge.

600mm added to the top of the loading gauge profile would remove all problems I would have with a high platform height.... as we could have all of the above!
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Is it?
Level boarding is important, level floor between vehicles is much less important.
As you said in your previous comment:
and note that a level floor within the vehicle is the primary constraint. They have published numerous expert opinions on this fact.

How do you get the meet the requirement to wheel the catering trolley through without level floors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top