• 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, unaffordable in ten steps?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
The Stop HS2 campaign has highlighted ten extra costs which could allow the project to be scrapped. These ten facts have not been fully coated by HS2 Ltd or Chris Grayling, plunging into doubt the scheme to give London Euston an extra railway line while the North gets nothing.

The ten issues which could kill off HS2 are:

  • Increased area of footprint at the proposed London Euston Station, apparently to make provision for extensive over site development.
  • Major engineering structure west of the proposed Old Oak Common Station to facilitate trains to crossover
  • Several connections from the proposed HS2 railway to the “classic” railway in the London area, on the Chiltern line and in the West Midlands in the Birmingham area
  • Provision of a traction maintenance depot at Washwood Heath in Birmingham
  • Major works around the proposed Birmingham Interchange Station involving a design and construction of a “people mover” from the station to Birmingham International Station, the Airport and the National Exhibition Centre
  • Alteration to motorways, M6/M42 and M6 Toll as well as to major trunk roads, A452/A446 and A45 in the Bickenhill area
  • Extensive concrete structure forming portals to tunnels along the route
  • Additional enabling works requiring the movement of commercial petroleum, gas and electricity lines
  • Diversion or relocation of watercourse in their floodplain at several locations along the route
  • Increase in the scope of the enabling works required along the entire route to mitigate disruption and damage to those affected by the project

I continue to hope that revelations like this enable the campaign against HS2 to reach a successful conclusion. These are uncosted elements that need to be addressed, and I'm sure the forum agrees.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Keep dreaming....
I will. There's no answers to accusations of unaffordability. The scheme to give London Euston an extra railway line was supposed to be on time and in budget. I thought it would be acceptable to question what happens when the budget flies so out of control.
 
Joined
18 Oct 2017
Messages
214
Aaannnd - it's time for this weeks trolling from PR1Berske.

Now let's see who StopHS2's source of information is: Oh, it's Berkeley and Byng.

And, yet again, I see "budget" being cited as "cost." It drives me bonkers - all but the most inept project manager knows that budget and cost are not at all the same thing, but we see sages such as Berkeley and Byng and StopHS2 (not to mention the mass ranks of the popular media) confunding the two. How can we take them seriously when they make such schoolboy errors.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Let's look at them one by one (and others are likely to be better informed than me on some of the details):

Increased area of footprint at the proposed London Euston Station, apparently to make provision for extensive over site development.

If this adds costs to a point that the over development isn't viable then the development won't happen. However, given property prices in London is unlikely to be much of an issue. It may mean that HS2 don't get as much money from the development, but it's likely to be a small impact.

Major engineering structure west of the proposed Old Oak Common Station to facilitate trains to crossover

Either this is party of the project, and therefore costed, or it's not and the extra costs would need to be justified on the benefits that it would bring.

Several connections from the proposed HS2 railway to the “classic” railway in the London area, on the Chiltern line and in the West Midlands in the Birmingham area

Why would there need to be several connections to the classic network beyond what was part of the project? Especially to the Chiltern line?

Provision of a traction maintenance depot at Washwood Heath in Birmingham

Any extra depots would likely to be part of the costs for the rolling stock and therefore wouldn't impact on the construction costs (which won't stop it being built).

Major works around the proposed Birmingham Interchange Station involving a design and construction of a “people mover” from the station to Birmingham International Station, the Airport and the National Exhibition Centre

They may be "major works" but that doesn't mean that they are major costs (at least in terms of the rest of the project). As an example a city in Spain built a network of 7 for €3.7 million.

Alteration to motorways, M6/M42 and M6 Toll as well as to major trunk roads, A452/A446 and A45 in the Bickenhill area

If these haven't been costed then someone will be in a lot of trouble, but probably not enough of a change to end the project.

Extensive concrete structure forming portals to tunnels along the route

These may not be item costs, but will be included in costs; even if not costed (which they probably will be).

Additional enabling works requiring the movement of commercial petroleum, gas and electricity lines

There may not be final cost quotes obtained, but there will be budget costs which will be place holders for the final costs (which are likely to be less than the budget costs).

Diversion or relocation of watercourse in their floodplain at several locations along the route

Again, probably not a final design with costs, but a budget cost.

Increase in the scope of the enabling works required along the entire route to mitigate disruption and damage to those affected by the project

Enabling works tend to be circa 15% of the whole project, even if these double that's 25% of the overrun allowance used up.

In short, sorry, but keep wishing if you think this will kill HS2.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
The connections to the classic network are for construction railheads to move spoil which form part of their environmental statement and are in the hybrid bill so why they wouldnt be costed PR1 must know. The depot at Washwood Heath was always planned too and is in the hybrid bill too as far as Im aware. I also bet that the people mover will probably get a fair wodge of funding from Birmingham Airport and the NEC as it will benefit them massively. Its clutching at straws and I doubt PR1 will be back to substantiate any of it.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
"Not fully costed"

What that means is the the designs haven't reached a level of design maturity to enable reliable final costs to be ascribed to them yet. Nor should they be, as some of this stuff won't be going for build for several years yet, and not all detailed designs will have been done (just concepts). And you can't put a final cost on something that isn't fully designed.

So in the meantime you put a point estimate in for what you think it will cost on best guess/preferred option, then whack on top a load of risk and optimisim bias to cover uncertainties. Heck, when you come to build it, actual costs can go down as well as up, and risks/opportunities may or may not become realised (covered as necessary by contingencies)
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
StopHS2 (aka Joe Rukin as everyone else associated with the group has... well... stopped) is nothing more than an uninformed sound board that lost credibility with stupid statements such as those posted frequently by the OP.

I am sure that (if he hasn't already), @Snapper will post yet another hilarious factual damning of StopHS2 (aka Joe Rukin)
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
One day these people will look just as foolish as the people that thought building the London Underground would let hell break loose.

How could building a rail-motorway to bypass a most painfully congested rail-A road be a bad idea? The capacity is needed.

And why would a train forum be the best place someone could think of to post such nonsense?
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
When has any infrastructure building:
1) Been fully costed
2) Come in at that cost?

HS2 WILL go ahead.
There is no stopping it now and I don't think there ever was.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
These ten facts have not been fully coated by HS2 Ltd or Chris Grayling, plunging into doubt the scheme to give London Euston an extra railway line while the North gets nothing

If they were to be "coated", I presume it would be manure that these "facts" have been coated in?

Most of what you are complaining about are either in the "not fully costed because it's not been tendered yet, but we can have a reasonable guess at what a new depot would cost, bearing in mind the costs of new depots elsewhere" or they belong to "someone else's budget" (we've enough work to do getting HS2 up and running and can then worry about the costs of "nice to haves" like through services to Bristol and a People Mover at Birmingham Airport).

But my favourite bit is when you try to keep up your line of thinking that this High Speed line doesn't benefit "the North" - the faster journey times and new infrastructure and hub at Manchester Airport and freeing up capacity on existing northern lines and new platforms at stations like Leeds is all just "nothing".

These "against HS2 at all costs" complaints were getting tedious, but you've gone beyond that to just plain amusing - more please!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
But my favourite bit is when you try to keep up your line of thinking that this High Speed line doesn't benefit "the North" - the faster journey times and new infrastructure and hub at Manchester Airport and freeing up capacity on existing northern lines and new platforms at stations like Leeds is all just "nothing".

Yes it's an odd argument isn't it? "A new railway line for London Euston". But a line runs from one place to another place so how can it just be a "new railway line for London Euston"? The answer, of course, being that it can't and, indeed, it isn't. It's a new railway line that will directly link London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds with high speed railway and will allow for services beyond there to take advantage of the route to reduce journey times to destinations that aren't directly served by the new high speed railway. Coincidentally most of those other destinations such as Liverpool, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow being in the North.

Still, that doesn't fit the narrative I suppose so must be discounted or otherwise obfuscated.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
I think the OP is someone who likes to cause controversy - lights the touchpaper and stands back to admire his work
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Yes it's an odd argument isn't it? "A new railway line for London Euston". But a line runs from one place to another place so how can it just be a "new railway line for London Euston"? The answer, of course, being that it can't and, indeed, it isn't. It's a new railway line that will directly link London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds with high speed railway and will allow for services beyond there to take advantage of the route to reduce journey times to destinations that aren't directly served by the new high speed railway. Coincidentally most of those other destinations such as Liverpool, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow being in the North.

Still, that doesn't fit the narrative I suppose so must be discounted or otherwise obfuscated.

I've talked about the hypocrisy about HS2 before. A new line from a small town to a big city is generally demanded because it's seen as helping the people in that small town. But improved high speed links to London apparently suck all of the life/prosperity out of already-large cities and turn them into dormitory places, if you believe some people on this forum.

So I see people demand that relatively minor places have their links to big cities reinstated (e.g. I am told that Bakewell to Manchester will benefit Bakewell rather than suck all of the life out of it and only be a new railway for Manchester... see also Okehampton/Plymouth, Colne/Leeds...), but whilst somewhere small like Bakewell can resist the shining lights of a significantly bigger city like Manchester, apparently Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds are so fragile that improved links to the capital will destroy them.

Odd. It's almost like some people are happy for any long abandoned line to be reinstated but get antsy about brand new alignments that don't simply follow Victorian routes. As I've said before, if HS2 followed the Grand Central route (which it rightly doesn't) then a lot of enthusiasts would suddenly adore it.

I think the OP is someone who likes to cause controversy - lights the touchpaper and stands back to admire his work

I wouldn't mind if they were at least better at it.

Trolling can be an art form, but suggesting that the need to build a maintenance depot will be the cost that sinks HS2 (when you've already made your hatred of HS2 obvious) is just a bit too blatant/ boring. Must try harder!
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
I think the OP is someone who likes to cause controversy - lights the touchpaper and stands back to admire his work
That would suggest you think me as a troll.

Let me assure you. I do not, and have not, not will never, support HS2. My posts come from opposition .Not from mischief or boredom or game playing. I post because the very concept irritates and annoys. Because I genuinely stay awake about it.

HS2 is important to me because I am so convinced that it will be the greatest disaster this country has ever known in peace time. That's not trolling. This is my honest and genuine concern.

I hate HS2. I will never use it. I will never accept it. I don't troll; I underline.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
That would suggest you think me as a troll.

Let me assure you. I do not, and have not, not will never, support HS2. My posts come from opposition .Not from mischief or boredom or game playing. I post because the very concept irritates and annoys. Because I genuinely stay awake about it.

HS2 is important to me because I am so convinced that it will be the greatest disaster this country has ever known in peace time. That's not trolling. This is my honest and genuine concern.

I hate HS2. I will never use it. I will never accept it. I don't troll; I underline.

Why do you feel so strongly air HS2 (given that it keeps you awake)?

In what ways do you think that it would be the greatest peace time disaster? Given that the ID card system cost upto £3bn and then was scrapped, or the NHS computer system which was cost about £11bn before it too was scrapped.
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
I hate HS2. I will never use it. I will never accept it. I don't troll; I underline.

Would you be prepared to accept that, however genuinely held your feelings and views may be, they are not rational?

It's just a train line.
 

TBirdFrank

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2009
Messages
218
As a thirty year former railwayman that got fairly well up the ladder, and close to government, I understand that there is only one pot of money that will be spent on the railways. I am very firmly in the camp that wants to see the whole country benefit and come out of this with a more strategic, resilient, diversion and choice capable railway than we have now. HS2 won't provide that except in very narrow areas of the country - very narrow.
The argument that the money to be spent on HS2 is somehow outside the normal economy, or that the country as a whole will benefit as trains dash by to some distant railhead of no concern to anyone within fifty miles is a chimera that somehow seems to appeal to a certain fraction of the population, but not to others just like Brexiteers and Remoaners.
Wouldn't it have been interesting to put HS2 up in front of the voters - I'll bet I would have been on the winning side than too!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
As a thirty year former railwayman that got fairly well up the ladder, and close to government, I understand that there is only one pot of money that will be spent on the railways. I am very firmly in the camp that wants to see the whole country benefit and come out of this with a more strategic, resilient, diversion and choice capable railway than we have now. HS2 won't provide that except in very narrow areas of the country - very narrow.

The argument that the money to be spent on HS2 is somehow outside the normal economy, or that the country as a whole will benefit as trains dash by to some distant railhead of no concern to anyone within fifty miles is a chimera that somehow seems to appeal to a certain fraction of the population, but not to others just like Brexiteers and Remoaners.

Wouldn't it have been interesting to put HS2 up in front of the voters - I'll bet I would have been on the winning side than too!


OK, first question for you; is HS2 a new stand alone line that couldn't be extended, or is it (like the M1) the first part of a bigger network of new lines (I know that part of the M6 was the first motorway, but then HS1 is the first HS line in the UK)?


The reason for asking is that on its own (Especially if you are only really thinking About phase 1) I can see where you are coming from.


You say that it only benefits a narrow area, however, especially given that XC has fairly limited service frequencies, it is likely that it would be quicker (as well as more services to choice from) to travel using HS2 from places like Southampton and Bournemouth to Birmingham and certainly to places but of there by joining HS2 at Old Oak Common (OOC).


This could be easier and/or faster still once the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built. This would also make Portsmouth/Brighton travel to the Midlands and the North faster. It would also remove some long distance travelers from Waterloo. In fact is probably quick enough that travel between Guildford and somewhere like Nuneaton and Coventry could be quicker using HS2 by doubling back via Birmingham. Even if it's not faster (assuming a zero wait time for your train) it could be quicker if you have just missed a London bound train. There have also been others who have posted that with HS2 their journey from somewhere some distance from HS2 would also benefit.


As such, even if no other parts are added to the HS network there some quite far flung places which will benefit from HS2.


Also by removing the long distance trains (like those who call at nowhere before Crewe) that then frees up paths for more services. Given that HS2 will remove long distance travelers from the existing services is unlikely that you would see more long distance services being added, as such it could be in that one path you then fit a few services. Although London/Liverpool services are likely to be replaced with semi fast services, those going London/Manchester could free up paths for local trains for around London and Manchester (i.e. two different services).


As such it depends on how you phrase the question about HS2 will depend on what answer you get and how easy it is for people to see how it will impact on their journeys.


If there was a HS2 journey planner created which showed likely journeys that:

- could be undertaken which directly benefited from the speed of using HS2

- could see more services by using the paths fed up by HS2

- could see where there was likely to be fewer people using their services (i.e. showing an average of 50 less people using certain given XC services and showing an average of 10 less people using Portsmouth to Waterloo services beyond Woking)


Yes for those traveling Plymouth to Bristol or Newcastle to Leeds there's likely to be little benefit, but then you'd struggle to get the level of benefit from other schemes for the number of people who would benefit.


It's one of the areas where those suggesting the other packages of works to provide the same level of capacity on the WCML didn't grasp. As although their proposals would have benefited some on the WCML it would have eased congestion on XC services, nor (after Phase 2 is open) the ECML. As such other packages of works would have been needed to help those and so you could have easily spent double, triple or more and not received the same level of improvements.


The other area that they failed to understand is by 2035 you may need to double capacity, but what happens after that if growth keeps on going?


HS2 could, by providing a 1 for 1 service provision increase train lengths by about 55% (seating could be higher, especially given that double decker trains and even 2+3 seating could be used). However with score to run more services, this increase in train length could be more. For instance rather than 3tph to Manchester there could be 4tph, that would be an increase in train length of between 207% and 253% depending on if the current services are 9 or 11 coach units.


Even if you split services you could see significant improvements if there were also an increase in frequencies. For instance London to Crewe where the train splits to serve Liverpool and Blackpool could see Liverpool getting 2tph (200m units) which compares with 1tph (211m or 257m), that would be an increase in train length of between 55% and 90%.


Even where rail growth nationally had fallen off late, this has been mostly in the Southeast which makes up something like 2/3 of all rail travel. However the model used for HS2 is based on 2.5% growth per year, which we've far exceeded for most years since 2009 when HS2 was proposed.


In fact between 2007/08 (the year before the announcement and so a likely base year) and 2016/17 passenger numbers grew by 42%. Which is quite a way shirt off the 2032/33 figure of 85%, however isn't that far off the 2025/2026 figure of 56% and we've still got just over 8 years to get there.

One final point, how much will be spent on enhancements to the existing network by 2026 (2033 if you like)? If it is zero or only £2 billion then you may well have a point about it being too be HS2 or the rest of the network. However, just on what was the electrification of the Trans Pennine route there's a budget of £3bn. I'm sure others could list other schemes and their budgets, but I would suggest that the total it's likely to be comparable, of not higher, to the HS2 costs (possibly even if you took 2026 as your date and the full, to the end of Phase 2, costs).

Which leads to the question, could you actually do more to the existing network in that timeframe without significantly impacting on the ability to run trains at weekends?
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Why do you feel so strongly air HS2 (given that it keeps you awake)?
It has always been something I have had a problem with. I'm a northener who sees the amount of money being spent on a new railway line which, yes actually, does serve London Euston, and I wonder why we up here lack anything like the same investment. The schemes you mention - ID cards and all - cost far too much without an end product to show for it, and quite rightly the government of the time was roundly criticised for the massive overspends in each cases. I wonder why similar care about project costs is apparently lacking in this case. At what point in HS2's current ever-increasing budget do we say "Enough is enough, to this amount of money and not a penny more"?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I'm a northener who sees the amount of money being spent on a new railway line which, yes actually, does serve London Euston, and I wonder why we up here lack anything like the same investment.

But you'll be able to get a train from Preston to London Euston that uses HS2 and provides you with a quicker journey time than you have today just as I, another Northerner, will be able to get a train from Darlington to London Euston also using HS2 and also getting to London quicker. So how does it not benefit the North? How is not investment in the North?

As I posited earlier. A railway line, by definition, runs from one place (London Euston in this case) to another (Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds). It cannot just serve one station as then it would not be a line.

At what point in HS2's current ever-increasing budget do we say "Enough is enough, to this amount of money and not a penny more"?

What is the current budget and what has it grown from?
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
What is the current budget and what has it grown from?
In April 2017 the Guardian reported the National Audit Office figure for the first phase at £27.4bn. In July 2017 the BBC set the cost of phase 1 at £22bn. Both of these are increases from the original budgeted cost.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,397
At what point in HS2's current ever-increasing budget do we say "Enough is enough, to this amount of money and not a penny more"?

Look what happened to the West Coast upgrade when we tried that ;)
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
In April 2017 the Guardian reported the National Audit Office figure for the first phase at £27.4bn. In July 2017 the BBC set the cost of phase 1 at £22bn. Both of these are increases from the original budgeted cost.
What was the original budgeted cost though? If that's an increase of £1bn then that sounds like the result of firming up estimates and whilst it most certainly isn't pocket change it isn't a humongous increase either. If it's gone up £10bn then that would seem to represent a much larger issue and one that may raise concerns.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
What was the original budgeted cost though? If that's an increase of £1bn then that sounds like the result of firming up estimates and whilst it most certainly isn't pocket change it isn't a humongous increase either. If it's gone up £10bn then that would seem to represent a much larger issue and one that may raise concerns.
You've got me looking for facts and figures which can only be a good thing :)

Wikipedia has a cited initial cost of between £15.8 and £17.4 billion with a total cost of £30bn for the Y-shape scheme. In November 2015 the Telegraph quotes a final cost of £42.6bn which must be for the whole scheme from start to finish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top