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

HS2 Review ongoing

Status
Not open for further replies.

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
948
If it finds the NHS capital budget for 15-17 years it sounds like you are talking about existing funding commitments. Are you suggesting we should double the NHS capital budget over that period?

No, I’m stating for how long that amount of money would fund current capital spending levels for, not currently funded commitments. I’m making the point that the NHS, education and defence all require huge amounts of capital expenditure. Several posts on here ignore that entirely and try to make out that the entire budgets go on staffing costs, which is nonsense.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
948
It's not surprising it's a difficult sell - we're building this because it's needed but we can't really explain what for, what it's actually going to do and we're not sure how much it will cost either. But trust us, something something powerhouse, something something capacity.

Nail on head. It also doesn’t benefit a significant proportion of the population in any way.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Nor does HS3 on that basis.

A major difference is I don't read claims that HS3 will benefit people living the other side of the country from it. No mentions of Southampton or Norwich, because it's clear what it's for, unlike HS2, so there is less need for wild claims for it.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
If only that were the case. And completely ignores that the NHS (as one example, defence is even more capital heavy) requires significant capital expenditure too. The now projected £106bn cost would fund the NHS capital expenditure for 15-17 years. That’s a lot of new or updated hospitals....

Great, let's talk about the NHS because everyone loves the NHS. There was always a consensus of its benefits from inception, right? From Wikipedia:

Many doctors were initially opposed to Bevan's plan, primarily on the grounds that it reduced their level of independence. The British Medical Association voted in May 1948 not to join the new service,[18] but Bevan worked hard to bring them on board by the time the new arrangements launched on 5 July 1948 knowing that without doctors, there would be no health service. Being a shrewd political operator, Bevan managed to push through the radical health care reform measure by dividing and cajoling the opposition, as well as by offering lucrative payment structures for consultants. On this subject he stated, "I stuffed their mouths with gold".

From this we see that it was a hard sell to persuade the healthcare profession of the desirability of the new service let alone those opposed to an expanded public sector, just like scepticism even within the rail industry for HSR. And, yes, it cost more than expected to make it happen. Does that mean that over seventy years later we as a nation regret the decision? Hell, no!
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
Providing the BCR remains >1 the UK will be poorer without it, which isn't something anyone desires.

Assuming the BCR is credible. Some projects I have heard it said are higher on costs when actually built but the benefits were / are higher still so although it might have been less than 1 before building it was greater than 1 afterwards
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
A submission to the review is now saying £106bn.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...064-billion-almost-double-amount-claimed/amp/

How high does it need to go before the consensus becomes it's too much? (I'd suggest that already is the consensus outside enthusiast circles)

By whom has the figure been submitted?

Depending on the rules depends on who can submit stuff to it. There have been many organisations which have put forwards costs, including those of £143bn.

The point is how reliable those figures are and how they have come about.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
A submission to the review is now saying £106bn.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...064-billion-almost-double-amount-claimed/amp/

How high does it need to go before the consensus becomes it's too much? (I'd suggest that already is the consensus outside enthusiast circles)

Well this is just one submission. There's not really enough information to give any idea of whether it's well founded or not. Probably best to wait until we have some kind of official revised estimate of costs before assuming that this submission is in any way accurate. And the Telegraph isn't exactly the most trustworthy of news sources.

As for, when it becomes too much. I guess the rational answer would be, it would become too much if it hits the point where it either becomes possible to build something that will achieve comparable benefits for a much lower cost, or if it hits the point that the cost-benefit ratio becomes less than 1 (after taking into account social and environmental benefits - which hopefully are included in the cost-benefit analysis).
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
A major difference is I don't read claims that HS3 will benefit people living the other side of the country from it. No mentions of Southampton or Norwich, because it's clear what it's for, unlike HS2, so there is less need for wild claims for it.

I'm pretty sure the two things are perfectly consistent. Yes, there are very good reasons to believe that HS2 will significantly benefit people who don't live anywhere near the route (example: Places like Stevenage and Grantham will probably see better services because HS2 will pull some of the faster trains that currently go through those towns without stopping off the ECML, freeing up capacity for services that can stop). But at the same time, clearly HS2 won't benefit the entire population. Virtually no transport infrastructure scheme is going to do that.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
948
Great, let's talk about the NHS because everyone loves the NHS. There was always a consensus of its benefits from inception, right? From Wikipedia:



From this we see that it was a hard sell to persuade the healthcare profession of the desirability of the new service let alone those opposed to an expanded public sector, just like scepticism even within the rail industry for HSR. And, yes, it cost more than expected to make it happen. Does that mean that over seventy years later we as a nation regret the decision? Hell, no!

Interesting post, I’ve been a clinical manager in the NHS so I get all of that, but it’s nothing at all to do with the point I was making.

Defence and education are both also capital heavy provisions.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
One example - Last week Alistair Darling (who is against HS2) on the Radio 4 Today programme asked why we were spending all this vast amount of money on HS2 when there were 40 yr old Pacers still running around ?

I have to agree with Alistair Darling, serious questions need to be asked about the Secretary of State for Transport who contractually forbade the previous Northern franchise from making any investment such as new rolling stock, saddling them with trains that even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were too much torture to inflict on the commuters of Iran.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I've asked this question often on this forum and people tend to say they're happy with no upper limit at all.

There's an upper limit, but we're still quite a long way from it, currently the cost per passenger movement over a 60 year period (assuming a constant level of passengers) is £15, once it gets to £45 people may start to think harder.

The problem is, unless there's one which we're not aware of, is there's no viable alternative which would cater for more than a few years of growth.

If it was a lot more costly and/or there was another option then you may get more support for not have HS2. Until such time as that, then chances are people will continue to support HS2.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
I think one of the issues with Crossrail is where it is actually being built. I wouldn't have thought HS2 will have those issues for a considerable amount of the route
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,417
Another 'mega' project seeing cost increases:
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2019/09/25/hinkley-construction-costs-increase-by-up-to-2-9bn/

Along with Crossrail and electrification schemes, we seem to be witnessing a wholesale loss of ability to keep the cost of large civil engineering projects under control. The particulars of HS2 may not be problem.

Is it that costs aren’t under control or that they are deliberately underestimated to get approvals and win contracts?
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
Is it that costs aren’t under control or that they are deliberately underestimated to get approvals and win contracts?

In the case of Hinkley, costs might well have been underestimated; but also the government - because of its gung-ho support for nuclear energy - not only turned a blind eye to any flaws in the figures, but also ignored rather fundamental matters such as the type of reactor concerned not yet having been got to work anywhere else in Europe. The existing sites with EPR reactors - in Finland and France - are years behind schedule and still aren't working.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
In the case of Hinkley, costs might well have been underestimated; but also the government - because of its gung-ho support for nuclear energy - not only turned a blind eye to any flaws in the figures, but also ignored rather fundamental matters such as the type of reactor concerned not yet having been got to work anywhere else in Europe. The existing sites with EPR reactors - in Finland and France - are years behind schedule and still aren't working.

Increases in costs of building Hinkley Point C don’t matter for the government or the consumer. EDF and the Chinese will be covering those costs and won’t be earning anything until it’s operating.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
Increases in costs of building Hinkley Point C don’t matter for the government or the consumer. EDF and the Chinese will be covering those costs and won’t be earning anything until it’s operating.

Yes - but that's because the government guaranteed that all electricity from there would be paid for (by all of us) at about twice the price of electricity produced by other means. And even that's not good enough for EDF et al; they now say that for similar follow-on reactors they want to build they want to be allowed - if [as usual] costs go up and there are delays - to pass on the extra costs as even higher charges for the energy supplied.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2011
Messages
779
Front page of today's Financial Times reporting the HS2 review is looking at axing the Eastern arm to Leeds to reducing the operating speed to 210mph save £10 billion on the cost of HS2. The report also mentions the panel is looking at terminating the line at Old Oak Common rather than Euston but I don't expect the panel will recommend this as then HS2 would be entirely dependent on Crossrail to disperse the passengers so any disruption on Crossrail would affect HS2 too.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I would be ok with reducing the speed a bit (but not lower than 200mph), although as has been mentioned previously by people who know about these things this wouldn't save much money (perhaps 5%).
Terminating at Old Oak Common is a stupid idea - it needs to go all the way to central London (although by all means use OOC as a temporary terminus to get an initial service running if necessary). Incedentally, people complain that there's no connection to HS1; how will they react if there's no station within about 5miles of HS1?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,417
Does HS2/NPR provide the capacity to send Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh services that way?
Would there be a truncated Eastern Arm leaving HS2 in the Midlands or would that overload Birmingham-Sheffield (and require a lot of electrification)?
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
Axing the eastern arm is a bad idea as it has the greatest benefit to the area it travels through, and if axing it and reducing the speed will only save £10 billion, I think that demonstrates how cheap (relatively) the eastern arm is to build.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Front page of today's Financial Times reporting the HS2 review is looking at axing the Eastern arm to Leeds to reducing the operating speed to 210mph save £10 billion on the cost of HS2. The report also mentions the panel is looking at terminating the line at Old Oak Common rather than Euston but I don't expect the panel will recommend this as then HS2 would be entirely dependent on Crossrail to disperse the passengers so any disruption on Crossrail would affect HS2 too.

They aren't looking at cancelling Euston altogether (Much as Camden council would like) but opening earlier to Old Oak which would allow revenue earning service to begin and allow for any delays in the complex Euston construction.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
5% of HS2 budget is still a lot of money to claim as a saving, and presumably makes the line a fair bit greener too.
Potentially. Personally I think that the originally planned 250mph was overkill, but at least it had an element of planning for the future in it (unlike most UK projects in any sector!).
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,417
The 250 looked rather like willy waving to me.
Haven’t the Chinese slowed theirs down from heroic speeds as it just isn’t worth the running costs?
 

SamYeager

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2014
Messages
337
The 250 looked rather like willy waving to me.
Haven’t the Chinese slowed theirs down from heroic speeds as it just isn’t worth the running costs?
If you're cynical you might wonder if the speed was made that high in the first place so that it could be conveniently cut as a "saving" whilst still keeping a minimum of 200mph instead of ending up with a sub 200mph if a lower figure had been chosen originally.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I would be ok with reducing the speed a bit (but not lower than 200mph), although as has been mentioned previously by people who know about these things this wouldn't save much money (perhaps 5%).
Terminating at Old Oak Common is a stupid idea - it needs to go all the way to central London (although by all means use OOC as a temporary terminus to get an initial service running if necessary). Incedentally, people complain that there's no connection to HS1; how will they react if there's no station within about 5miles of HS1?
I agree, reducing the linespeed is sensible (and having 200mph would probably be a great marketing tool) and cancelation of Euston would be a mistake. I think the main things HS2 needs are:
  • some way of proving whether or not the impact on important wildlife sites (ancient woodland, nature reserves, SSSIs etc.) has been minimised (and if this finds that the impact hasn't been minimised, re-routing so that it does)
  • much better integration with the classic network and Northern Powerhouse Rail, which I think means a major rethink around Birmingham and possibly Manchester and Leeds
  • re-phase and rescope the project to:
    • eventually include Northern Powerhouse Rail and a Leeds - Birmingham - Bristol route which is part HSR and part electrified classic line (it might be possible to upgrade the Worcester avoiding line to high speed standards as part of this)
    • deliver London to Birmingham International first, leaving time to redesign the integration with the classic network noted above
    • deliver the eastern arm in stages, starting with the section from Leeds to the junction where Sheffield trains are planned to run off HS2 and onto the classic line into Sheffield
5% of HS2 budget is still a lot of money to claim as a saving, and presumably makes the line a fair bit greener too.
Yes, it should make it greener (the energy savings are actually the main reason I support reducing the headline linespeed a little, with the cost saving being a bonus).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top