• 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.

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
A good day to be an opponent of HS2.

Is it? If you've bothered to read anything properly today (I doubt it), the project has moved to a much better assessment of its costs and timescales, and a recognition its benefits have not been fully captured.

That's a well-developed project coming towards maturity.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Doesn't matter. If the Government decides (or is instructed to) scrap HS2, they will, and passenger numbers don't matter.

Yet it does matter, if passenger numbers are a third higher and the base costs have gone up by a similar factor then the cost per user status the same.

However if cost have risen less fast then the cost per user falls and the business case is better.

Under such a scenario it is less likely that it would be cancelled. Therefore it's not a good day for those who want it to be cancelled.
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,748
Scrapping the eastern leg is a stupid idea. Firstly its the part of the route that offers the biggest time gains over current services. Journey times between Leeds / Newcastle to Birmingham will be reduced by over an hour with Sheffield also experiencing savings. Stations that have a connecting service to York, Leeds, Darlington or Newcastle will also experience these journey time reductions.

Secondly, quite a bit of the HS2 eastern arm is needed for NPR. Sheffield to Leeds requires HS2 from near Rotherham. Garforth to Church Fenton is likely to be needed to alleviate capacity constraints and the poor reliability of this line. Leeds will need the HS2 station to relieve the current station.

Finally, what happens with the southern ECML? It continues having to run express trains at the expense or regional, commuter and freight services. There is very little opportunity to increase capacity above what is already committed. Perhaps Newark Flyover would be the last likely project to improve capacity.
Isnt the WCML a lot more busy and congested than the ECML?
That was 1 purpose of HS2, to reduce congestion on an already severely overcrowded and congested line. I feel like that takes more priority by finding a solution through HS2 first.

ECML will get its time...eventually
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
Is it? If you've bothered to read anything properly today (I doubt it), the project has moved to a much better assessment of its costs and timescales, and a recognition its benefits have not been fully captured.

That's a well-developed project coming towards maturity.

So far HS2 has expended £5.1B to date (p15 of the report) of which £3B is non property related so as very little physical works have been undertaken the majority of this cost has gone on "professional services" to world class professional service organisations to ensure that it had a robust cost and delivery programme but we have todays statement. This isnt my definition of well developed project. Furthermore HS2 Ltd employs 20 senior managers who earn in excess 200k and another 12 in excess of 150k who are supposed to be managing this project doesn't look like it to me. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/492289/150K_senior_salaries.csv/preview )
This is becoming atypical of many rail projects with huge overhead costs expended in the name of creating cost and timescale certainty failing to do so. Cull the overheads and just let the deliverers get on with it.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Extra 22 billion is a bit ridiculous at this point on top of the delays

Half of that is just recalibrating the costs at a different baseline - e.g.a project due to cost £1,000,000 in 2010 may have cost £1,628,894 by 2020 but that isn't the same as a rise of £628,894, it's just the fact that construction industry inflation has been 5%pa. By the time the project is delivered, the total cost will look significantly larger than the projected cost at the start of the project (because you are paying costs several years after they were initially budgeted for).

The bigger the project and the longer it's expected to take, the bigger the discrepancy. Unfortunate, but construction industry inflation is always higher than "average" inflation.

The problem is that it's an easy stick to bash HS2 with.

Scrapping the eastern leg is a stupid idea. Firstly its the part of the route that offers the biggest time gains over current services. Journey times between Leeds / Newcastle to Birmingham will be reduced by over an hour with Sheffield also experiencing savings

Bringing Birmingham - Leeds down to an hour (half the current journey time, and with significantly longer trains than an hourly Voyager) will be transformational - it's a much ignored improvement (possibly because people want to portray HS2 only in terms of London?).

Finally, what happens with the southern ECML? It continues having to run express trains at the expense or regional, commuter and freight services. There is very little opportunity to increase capacity above what is already committed. Perhaps Newark Flyover would be the last likely project to improve capacity.

Agreed - the 260m IETs are pretty much maxing out platform capacity and the planned frequency increases in the next year or two will fill any remaining paths... you could cram in some more seats by replacing the 5x23m 180s but those Open Access services are generally off-peak so only marginal gains.

Anything else is going to be tinkering around the edges - removing some of the local services crossing Doncaster on the flat, speeding up the Norwich - Nottingham service (100mph 170s instead of 90mph 158s) may give another slight improvement, but... if we don't have an eastern leg of HS2 then the ECML is going to be very hard to improve (beyond those committed to for the next couple of years)

On another note, I think these threads should come with a frequently asked questions and facts post on the first page.

For example the amount of times I have heard 'the UK is a small country we don't need highspeed rail' when the distance between London and Edinburgh is only slightly less than Paris to Marseille (but significantly slower by rail currently). Things like journey time need to be set out thoroughly so the same lines about 20 minutes saved to Brum are not repeated.[/QUOTE]

Yup - the UK may be a "small country" in some people's eyes but it's rather long in the distance that HS2 is planned to run.

As the mayors and councils behind Northern Powerhouse have said many times the two are linked, Northern Powerhouse will not work without HS2.

Agreed - HS3/Northern Powerhouse piggybacks on the costs of HS2 - without all of those nice long platforms at Piccadilly/Leeds, there'd be no starting point for NPR.

So far HS2 has expended £5.1B to date (p15 of the report) of which £3B is non property related so as very little physical works have been undertaken the majority of this cost has gone on "professional services" to world class professional service organisations to ensure that it had a robust cost and delivery programme but we have todays statement. This isnt my definition of well developed project. Furthermore HS2 Ltd employs 20 senior managers who earn in excess 200k and another 12 in excess of 150k who are supposed to be managing this project doesn't look like it to me. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/492289/150K_senior_salaries.csv/preview )
This is becoming atypical of many rail projects with huge overhead costs expended in the name of creating cost and timescale certainty failing to do so. Cull the overheads and just let the deliverers get on with it.

I agree, but this is another issue where HS2 is criticised for something that affects all projects - the fact that lots of money is spent on project managers and planners before any spades are in the ground - I'm not defending the salaries involved etc but I do tire of the way that fault is found with HS2 on issues that people turn blind eyes to in other projects.

(I guess one difference with HS2 is that there's been a concerted attempt to thwart every part of the project by various campaigners... which often requires reviews and additional costs to mitigate some troublesome issues raised by campaigners... who then complain that HS2 isn't being delivered on time and on budget)
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Furthermore HS2 Ltd employs 20 senior managers who earn in excess 200k and another 12 in excess of 150k who are supposed to be managing this project doesn't look like it to me.

That's 32 paid more than £150,000, in 2016 network rail has 48 with the highest paid over £650,000. With 6 of the top paid jobs at NR being paid over £400,000 each (total of £2.9 million).

Yet it's only HS2 which attracts the level of criticism and not NR.
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,761
Location
Back in Sussex
That's 32 paid more than £150,000, in 2016 network rail has 48 with the highest paid over £650,000. With 6 of the top paid jobs at NR being paid over £400,000 each (total of £2.9 million).

Yet it's only HS2 which attracts the level of criticism and not NR.

I think, to be honest, that HS2 salaries are attracting criticism rather than NR simply because HS2 is the thing that is current news, I remember distinctly that in 2013 NR were attracting headlines of their own because of their excessive salaries and bonuses, what's in the news now is what people complain about, the rest is fish and chip wrapping as HS2 will be when the next excessive pay 'scandal' hits the news
 

JKF

Member
Joined
29 May 2019
Messages
675
At this rate I imagine the Chinese will have completed their high speed line from Beijing to Leeds long before the domestic effort gets there.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
Is it? If you've bothered to read anything properly today (I doubt it), the project has moved to a much better assessment of its costs and timescales, and a recognition its benefits have not been fully captured.
Stab in the dark here but these additional benefits that have not been fully captured will coincidentally come to just slightly more than the increase in costs.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,027
Old Oak Common to Curzon Street... Blast, I was hoping the review would defer Curzon Street and make the Birmingham area the subject of a more-detailed review. Assuming that the designers have avoided ancient woodlands, SSSIs, SACs etc. to the fullest extent possible (which I'm not sure they have) I'd be in favour of a new 200mph/325kph railway with Euston - Birmingham International as phase 1 and York-Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool/Crewe (an integrated version of NPR and HS2's Manchester arm) as phase 2, but I'm not sure about the bit around Birmingham. There is significant tunneling already planned for HS2 (London, Manchester and some of the environmentally sensitive areas), a bit more around Birmingham (allowing Curzon Street to be a through station in a cutting like, I think, Stratford International) would make HS2 a heck of a lot more useful than currently proposed.
That's exactly what I want, I would be fine with it if it was completed in that way, I also think that HS3 and Phase 2b should be a priority and done in a similar tunnelled route,with a few more classic rail connections.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
That's 32 paid more than £150,000, in 2016 network rail has 48 with the highest paid over £650,000. With 6 of the top paid jobs at NR being paid over £400,000 each (total of £2.9 million).

Yet it's only HS2 which attracts the level of criticism and not NR.
Fair point but CEO of HS2 gets 610k vs NRs man whose only on 585k on what is much more demanding role i would politely suggest but at least it looks like HS2 haven't got the crazy bonus schemes that the Crossrail lot awarded themselves. The real issue here is these arms length organisations were setup to be more robust than government run projects but with Crossrail and now HS2 going off the rails i would suggest a re-evaluation is required albeit that will of course be done by more consultants!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
That's exactly what I want, I would be fine with it if it was completed in that way, I also think that HS3 and Phase 2b should be a priority and done in a similar tunnelled route,with a few more classic rail connections.

If you build you phase 2b first either you have to build Curzon Street anyway (which would push the costs up for phase 2b and reduce the costs for phase 1) as I'm not sure what extra services you could run without it, or you would be limited to running Leeds/York to the East Midlands.

Now it could be that phase 2b could be started to be built sooner and/or faster so that it opens sooner. Although given the size of the project doing this could be difficult and run the risk of costs being higher than you would otherwise need.

This would be supply and demand, if HS2 had more works at the same time then there would be a need for more construction resources. Let's say that there's a limit of 100 of HS2 is taking 15 then there's still lots left for other works. However if it requires 30 then sky-high there's still a lot left that's likely to mean that the cost will have gone up to use them as there would be more other projects bidding to use them.

There is the risk to fall into the HS2 paradox, we want HS2 in the North more than in the South, that's not on the table and so we don't want HS2 at all.

Clearly it's better to get HS2 in 2040, or even 2060, than not have it at all. Yes there'll be less of us around to see it, but actually what does it matter if we can use it. The question should be, would the country be better off of HS2 existed? Part of that requires you to answer other questions including:
Do we need or not more rail capacity?
How will this help with carbon neutral goals?
What's the alternative if we don't?
Are there better value ways (these may not be just the cheaper ones) to achieve this?

I know I keep harping on about it, but rail growth has it performed what it should have done to justify HS2, which then results in it being better value than it otherwise would be. This also allows it to absorb some of the additional costs.

View media item 3340
In 2009 rail usage between London and the North West had 6,576,000 passenger movements per year. Based on predictions (2.5% growth per year) the target passenger movements per year for future years would have been:
2018 - 8,213,000
2026 - 10,280,000
2027 - 10,537,000
2033 - 11,894,000

Well in 2018 the actual figure was 11,213,000 which is:
36.5% higher than predicted for 2018
9.1% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 1
6.4% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a
5.7% lower than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a

If growth continues at an average of 2.5% per year then there's a 1/3 extra passenger movements to cover the post of the increases in costs.

If growth broadly results in passenger movements being the same then there could be problems with the increased costs. However when has that ever happened when you've provided extra capacity? As such that's a fairly unlikely outcome, which makes the outcome that passenger numbers will fall even less likely.

However another possible outcome is that there would be faster than 2.5% per year growth. If that happens then it could be that by 2040 could have seen growth, assuming 2.75% growth per year, to 20,366,000 (81.6% higher than today).

Assuming that the average loading of trains today was currently the first figures then the second figure would be the loadings in 2040 without building HS2:
40% / 72%
50% / 90%
60% / 109%
70% / 127%
80% / 145%
90% / 163%

Now if we build HS2 with its trains axle to carry 1,100 passengers then those loadings drop from/to:
72% / 38%
90% / 48%
109% / 58%
127% / 68%
145% / 77%
163% / 87%

That would mean that in 2040 comparable HS2 services could be almost as busy as they are now in passenger loading terms. The above is based on the assumption that we are comparing 11 coach trains with the new HS2 services.

That's with 2.75% growth per year, which is hardly a large amount. If it is lower growth then we'll hit those capacity figures a bit later. If it's higher than we got then sooner:
1.5% growth then 2060
2% growth then 2050
3% growth then 2038
4% growth then 2033

Now that higher figures are fairly unlikely, and is unlikely to be achieved, mostly because there'd be so little time after any part of HS2 is built for you to see growth because of the extra capacity.

However the opposite is also true, that growth of as little of 1.5% is also unlikely because of the big capacity improvements from HS2 attracting more users.

Either way, comparable services could be as well loaded by about the middle of this century with HS2 as they are now without it.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Whatever the costs and merits of this particular project, we are decades behind the other major industrial countries (except the USA) who have all deployed this technology long ago.

The French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Swiss, the Japanese all have this technology and the Chinese over the last 20 years have built more high-speed track than all the conventional rail track we have.

To the list you can add Morocco. Yes, North Africa - portrayed in the media as a basket case people would rather drown in the sea than live in - has an HSR network now.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
I have a question, was the WCML a White Elephant in 2009?

The reason for asking is that if we see growth of 2.5% per year between now and 2031 then HS2 services could be as busy (in passenger loading percentages) then as in 2009.

To hit the new fully open timeline of 2040 then growth would only need to be 1.5% per year to see the same thing.

If we go further back and compare it to 2001 then rail growth would only need to be 0.9% per year for HS2 services to be as busy in 2040 as they were when the chase 390's were introduced. Should we not have done that because that would be a White Elephant?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
To the list you can add Morocco. Yes, North Africa - portrayed in the media as a basket case people would rather drown in the sea than live in - has an HSR network now.

But other people having one is just about the worst possible justification for HS2.
I would imagine Morocco is a bit emptier than the UK, with significantly lower construction costs (labour etc) and their government has more ability to steamroller through local opposition.
Most of these countries also have a very different starting position - we already have high speed lines so the gain in building a new one to current definitions of high speed is not as dramatic.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
I have a question, was the WCML a White Elephant in 2009?

The reason for asking is that if we see growth of 2.5% per year between now and 2031 then HS2 services could be as busy (in passenger loading percentages) then as in 2009.

To hit the new fully open timeline of 2040 then growth would only need to be 1.5% per year to see the same thing.

If we go further back and compare it to 2001 then rail growth would only need to be 0.9% per year for HS2 services to be as busy in 2040 as they were when the chase 390's were introduced. Should we not have done that because that would be a White Elephant?
It would be interesting to see the business case revisised with the new growth numbers...
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
It was inevitable that today would be chosen to bury the bad news.
Yesterday Boris Johnson was talking about big infrastructure plans and today his transport minister announces delays to the biggest infrastructure project.

How do you propose this delay is avoided starting from where we are today?
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
Hugely destructive, waste of money white elephant turns out to be a white elephant which is hugely destructive and a waste of money.

Well, I didn't see that one coming.

Any party which commits to binning HS2 off gets my vote.

Green and Brexit party so far I think
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
I am a little concerned that there seems to be little reaction to the projected up to 5 years delay on phase 1, as we keep being told on here that the capacity shortfall is serious and resolution urgent - so how will the existing railway cope, especially as even the new timescales may yet fail to be met?

The delay on Phase 2 is also significant (or parts / all cancelled entirely), so how is this going to play out do we think from a capacity / speed point of view?
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
Sajid Javid on his spending review statement in parliament earlier making a big play on the needs of national infrastructure but appears to connect the needs to take the right spending decisions with the fast tracking of the HS2 review. Could be a warm up for deferral or confirmation to keep going. Statement not yet released to HM Treasury site.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
If the review comes back suggesting that HS2 would have been good value for money at £88bn to begin with it would really put a stop to the hand wringing.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
You are of course correct. I wouldn't have turned my nose up at £100bn for a project this important, but my values clearly differ from that of the media.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Sajid Javid on his spending review statement in parliament earlier making a big play on the needs of national infrastructure but appears to connect the needs to take the right spending decisions with the fast tracking of the HS2 review. Could be a warm up for deferral or confirmation to keep going. Statement not yet released to HM Treasury site.

The statement is now on the Treasury site (section 2.33 for Transport).
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/829177/Spending_Round_2019_web.pdf
For rail, it only mentions specifically the Leeds-Manchester section of NPR, and East-West Rail, as specific priorities.
Plus a bit more maintenance money for Network Rail for 2020/21.
There may of course be more detail when the DfT expands on its settlement.

The Department for Transport settlement includes:
• an 11.4 per cent increase in real terms to the department’s resource budget from 2019-20 to 2020-21;
• £1.1 billion funding to ensure the Strategic Road Network runs safely and smoothly, enabling a high-performing road network that will support the economy;
• support for rail passengers and the wider rail network – for example, by committing a further £275 million for maintaining rail infrastructure in 2020-21 compared to 2019-20;
• over £200 million of increased funding to transform bus services, making best use of technology and promoting decarbonisation, to help people make the everyday journeys that matter most to them. Further details will be announced in due course; and
• continued support for the development of major transport projects, including pushing on with work on the Leeds to Manchester route of Northern Powerhouse Rail, and driving forward East West rail links in the Oxford to Cambridge Arc.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
You are of course correct. I wouldn't have turned my nose up at £100bn for a project this important, but my values clearly differ from that of the media.

Yes. The NHS cost around 120bn a year to run iirc. The 100bn for HS2 would be spread over the years of construction, then once it’s complete we can start charging people to use it and reap the economic and social benefits.

100bn is of course an incredible amount of money. It needs to be put into some perspective by comparison with other national expenditure I think.
 

Nagora

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2018
Messages
43
Yes. The NHS cost around 120bn a year to run iirc. The 100bn for HS2 would be spread over the years of construction, then once it’s complete we can start charging people to use it and reap the economic and social benefits.

100bn is of course an incredible amount of money. It needs to be put into some perspective by comparison with other national expenditure I think.
I'd rather have it put into some perspective by comparing it to how much the Japanese pay for a mile of high-speed track (what's HS2 up to now?). I don't think comparing trains with hospitals is particularly illuminating on the subject of whether we're being ripped off or not, which is the main point.

The secondary point is whether HS2 should get the cash instead of the thousands of other rail projects that it could be spent on, but there seems to be a vocal minority here that think you can spend £80+Bn on one project without it having any effect on how much money you have to spend on other ones. I wish my bank account worked like that.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
Brexit Party because they only like roads and hate public transport. Green Party because.. Umm haven't quite worked that one out yet.

They dislike anything that carves up the countryside. They seem to think adding more tracks to existing rail routes and upgrading freight lines to passenger will do the trick.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
But other people having one is just about the worst possible justification for HS2.
I would imagine Morocco is a bit emptier than the UK, with significantly lower construction costs (labour etc) and their government has more ability to steamroller through local opposition.
Most of these countries also have a very different starting position - we already have high speed lines so the gain in building a new one to current definitions of high speed is not as dramatic.
I imagine that Morocco also has far fewer passengers to overload their existing lines and far less capital with which to fund a capital project.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
They dislike anything that carves up the countryside. They seem to think adding more tracks to existing rail routes and upgrading freight lines to passenger will do the trick.
The Brexit part doesn't want it because we managed without it in 1976. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top