Leaked HS2 report claims scheme ‘fundamentally flawed’ - FT

[yorksrob]

*sighs*

I’m going to say this one last time.

At any given point in time there is only one methodology for assessing transport projects that require Government funding.

It’s called WebTAG, and is recognised internationally as one of the best appraisal methodologies anywhere in the world. You can read all about it here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag

There is a substantial amount of guidance linked from that web page.

Then I would expect the whole raft of proposals including Skipton-Colne, Uckfield -Lewes, Tavistock, Wisbeach etc to be reviewed in the light of this new methodology in the near future as a matter of course. Any attempt to put off, or obfuscate on this would be just another cynical ploy to avoid reopenings.

 

[The Planner]

WEBTAG is a good 5 years old, what evidence is there that anything has been put off in that time?

 

[AndrewE]

A number of posters say similar things; can I ask why you believe this? Do you think Phase 2 is a fundamentally flawed concept? Is the government spending hundreds of millions of pounds on planning and design for Phase 2 as some cynical PR exercise to fool Northerners? Are there fundamental reasons why it can't be done that the government has yet to realise?

Just ask yourself how much the government spent on Eurostar trains, plus locos and sleeper trains, plus facilities at stations (fully-fitted lounges at the very least) and securely fenced sidings to serve the regional termini, then ask yourself why people living remote from London might reply to that with weary cynicism!

 

[yorksrob]

WEBTAG is a good 5 years old, what evidence is there that anything has been put off in that time?

How many of the above schemes have been evaluated using this method ? Most of them are pretty long in the tooth.

 

[quantinghome]

Just ask yourself how much the government spent on Eurostar trains, plus locos and sleeper trains, plus facilities at stations (fully-fitted lounges at the very least) and securely fenced sidings to serve the regional termini, then ask yourself why people living remote from London might reply to that with weary cynicism!

That was more of a fundamentally flawed concept. Cynical PR exercises are devised to save money, not actually build the kit then not use it. A PR exercise would have promised regional eurostars, then delayed the decision, then quietly dropped it citing low cost airlines or something.

 

[Ianno87]

Just ask yourself how much the government spent on Eurostar trains, plus locos and sleeper trains, plus facilities at stations (fully-fitted lounges at the very least) and securely fenced sidings to serve the regional termini, then ask yourself why people living remote from London might reply to that with weary cynicism!

One heck of a lot of money is required to be invested just to develop a design for a new line to the point where it can be submitted for powers.

Possibly far more than the Regional Eurostar infrastructure delivered actually cost (some of which saw some eventual use).

Regional Eurostar was, of course, also a total economic basket case of a service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regional Eurostar was, of course, also a total economic basket case of a service.

It was, but that was at least in part because of the concurrent start of the low-cost airline revolution. Without that it may well have been viable, or at least less unviable.

 

[Bald Rick]

How many of the above schemes have been evaluated using this method ? Most of them are pretty long in the tooth.

WebTAG or a version of it, is 20 years old. It’s only been called WebTAG for 7 years, before that it was called NATA (New Approach to Transport Assessment), but wa essentially the same thing.

As I said earlier, every transport scheme of this type requiring Government funding must be assessed using it. Certainly Lewes-Uckfield, Wisbech and the various options of avoiding Dawlish have. Skipton-Colne claims to have done, but I suspect the latest study will actually do it properly for the first time.

What has happened since some of these were assessed is that the values for certain factors have changed, often simply because the price of those factors has changed in everyday life, e.g. the price of fuel.

There are literally thousands of schemes that have been assessed on the old values. It would be an enormous task to reassess them all, and cost hundreds of millions to do. In the interests of fairness you couldn’t pick and choose, you would have to do them all. Including all the highway schemes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just ask yourself how much the government spent on Eurostar trains, plus locos and sleeper trains, plus facilities at stations (fully-fitted lounges at the very least) and securely fenced sidings to serve the regional termini, then ask yourself why people living remote from London might reply to that with weary cynicism!

It was also enshrined in law that the Regional Eurostar services would be provided - this was done to get the Channel Tunnel Bill onto the statute book. So the stuff had to be built. AIUI the Railways Act of 1993 unpicked that particular requirement (although I’m happy to be corrected)

 

[yorksrob]

WebTAG or a version of it, is 20 years old. It’s only been called WebTAG for 7 years, before that it was called NATA (New Approach to Transport Assessment), but wa essentially the same thing.

As I said earlier, every transport scheme of this type requiring Government funding must be assessed using it. Certainly Lewes-Uckfield, Wisbech and the various options of avoiding Dawlish have. Skipton-Colne claims to have done, but I suspect the latest study will actually do it properly for the first time.

What has happened since some of these were assessed is that the values for certain factors have changed, often simply because the price of those factors has changed in everyday life, e.g. the price of fuel.

There are literally thousands of schemes that have been assessed on the old values. It would be an enormous task to reassess them all, and cost hundreds of millions to do. In the interests of fairness you couldn’t pick and choose, you would have to do them all. Including all the highway schemes.

If the values in the model have changed, it will fundamentally change the outcomes of that model, therefore schemes assessed with the old values need updating.

I do not accept for one moment that it is beyond the ken of Government to prioritise five reopening schemes to be getting on with straight away. They were able to prioritise station reopenings for the new stations fund, so if they are serious about public transport, they should do this.

They must use the same assumptions around wider economic benefits in particular, as used for HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the values in the model have changed, it will fundamentally change the outcomes of that model, therefore schemes assessed with the old values need updating.

I do not accept for one moment that it is beyond the ken of Government to prioritise five reopening schemes to be getting on with straight away. They were able to prioritise station reopenings for the new stations fund, so if they are serious about public transport, they should do this.

They must use the same assumptions around wider economic benefits in particular, as used for HS2.

Which schemes should be prioritised for reassessment though:

Those with the best cases that just missed the cut?
Those where the project circumstances have changed significantly?
Or the ones that you want?

There will be a lot of highway schemes in the first two categories. And no reopening schemes that I’m aware of.

You can’t just update the changed values. You have to update the costs, benefits, risks and planning assumptions as well, as they will have changed over the years. It’s not a trivial exercise. Who would pay?

And what happens when the WebTAG values change again (they are updated regularly, associety and the economy develop). Do we do it all again?

Please do read the WebTAG guidance, it is quite interesting to see how it has developed.

 

[yorksrob]

Which schemes should be prioritised for reassessment though:

Those with the best cases that just missed the cut?
Those where the project circumstances have changed significantly?
Or the ones that you want?

There will be a lot of highway schemes in the first two categories. And no reopening schemes that I’m aware of.

You can’t just update the changed values. You have to update the costs, benefits, risks and planning assumptions as well, as they will have changed over the years. It’s not a trivial exercise. Who would pay?

And what happens when the WebTAG values change again (they are updated regularly, associety and the economy develop). Do we do it all again?

Please do read the WebTAG guidance, it is quite interesting to see how it has developed.

I would probably use some sort of rudimentary scoring system based on how close schemes were last time, but with points added for large housing developments etc.

I don't see the need to include road schemes as the new stations fund didn't. I think the Connecting Communities document outlines why connecting communities with public transport is useful aside from more road construction.

I will have a read when I get the chance as it sounds interesting.

 

[The Ham]

Which schemes should be prioritised for reassessment though:

Those with the best cases that just missed the cut?
Those where the project circumstances have changed significantly?
Or the ones that you want?

There will be a lot of highway schemes in the first two categories. And no reopening schemes that I’m aware of.

You can’t just update the changed values. You have to update the costs, benefits, risks and planning assumptions as well, as they will have changed over the years. It’s not a trivial exercise. Who would pay?

And what happens when the WebTAG values change again (they are updated regularly, associety and the economy develop). Do we do it all again?

Please do read the WebTAG guidance, it is quite interesting to see how it has developed.

There are two areas which I would change, the first one is an allowance for CO2 production (cost) coupled with a CO2 reduction (benefit). This would mean things like electric charging points for cars, electrification of the railways, provision of public transport to reduce road use, etc. would all do quite well.

The second would be a small factor associated with providing resilience sure to climate change. This would enable things like flood protection, retro fitting of sustainable urban drainage (to limit surface water flooding), sea defences, etc. to be built. In borderline cases it could benefit some transport schemes of they would allow travel when it was otherwise not possible due to floods, storm surges, etc.

 

[yorksrob]

There should certainly also be some sort of uplift for bringing a given number of households within walking distance of a passenger railway service. I suspect that providing a decent public transport option that doesn't rely on public roads, to communities that were previously deprived of them barely registers at present.

Of course, HS2 wouldn't score that highly on this metric for obvious reasons, but some tram and guided busway schemes could potentially.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are two areas which I would change, the first one is an allowance for CO2 production (cost) coupled with a CO2 reduction (benefit). This would mean things like electric charging points for cars, electrification of the railways, provision of public transport to reduce road use, etc. would all do quite well.

The second would be a small factor associated with providing resilience sure to climate change. This would enable things like flood protection, retro fitting of sustainable urban drainage (to limit surface water flooding), sea defences, etc. to be built. In borderline cases it could benefit some transport schemes of they would allow travel when it was otherwise not possible due to floods, storm surges, etc.

The first is already in, and always has been. That will be a factor for updating in the next few years, as road transport ‘electrifies’

The second is covered through assessment of the costs and benefits of mitigating severe weather. Plenty of examples of that in both transport schemes and environment agency works.

There should certainly also be some sort of uplift for bringing a given number of households within walking distance of a passenger railway service. I suspect that providing a decent public transport option that doesn't rely on public roads, to communities that were previously deprived of them barely registers at present.

Of course, HS2 wouldn't score that highly on this metric for obvious reasons, but some tram and guided busway schemes could potentially.

This is all covered in the transport modelling. The models, if done correctly, will demonstrate the changes in transport mode and route choices by the travelling population when new options are provided. The benefit comes in reduced Generalised Journey Time for existing users, and increased economic activity through trips generated by the new link. This latter category clearly brings income to the mode concerned, but also the economic benefit. The income growth is captured in the ‘level 1’ benefits, the economic value in the ‘level 2’ benefits. You have to do it this way as providing a new link of itself is no benefit to anyone (except those of us who build them); obviously it has to be used to provide the benefit. Therefore the models forecast how it will be used. The models are reasonably accurate in the medium to long term (the London model is astonishingly accurate), but naturally are refined as more data is captured. This is one of the reasons for the regular value updates.

 

[HSTEd]

I supppose in the long run it might be possible to do the assesment largely electronically using machine learning and statistical analysis.......

At which point you could update assesments weekly - at least as a first step in the process.

 

[Bald Rick]

I supppose in the long run it might be possible to do the assesment largely electronically using machine learning and statistical analysis.......

At which point you could update assesments weekly - at least as a first step in the process.

I don’t think so. Some of the transport modelling takes days of processing just for one scheme. And that is but one input.

 

[HSTEd]

I don’t think so. Some of the transport modelling takes days of processing just for one scheme. And that is but one input.

If its days of processing power, Moores law will make fools of all.

 

[tbtc]

Exactly!
The Y-shaped northern bits are only there in the stated plans to make northerners think that it is a UK project that benefits them and so they should be happy to contribute. It will NEVER go north of Birmingham.

Don't forget, it's all about capacity, NOT SPEED! So lets look at Birmingham to Leeds, there are several lines which could be reinstated (Midland line between Normanton and Rotherham could be reinstated comparatively easily - originally removed because there was TOO MUCH capacity). This route was as fast or faster than going via Wakefield Westgate. Alternatively, just reinstate the curve Pontefract Monkhill to Baghill. So loads of CAPACITY between Leeds and Sheffield at comparatively little cost and also between Leeds and Doncaster via Pontefract and Shaftholme junction, but that would need to be upgraded / underpinned to obtain reasonable speeds in an area of mining subsidence. To get to Birmingham, use Midland route from Claycross via Derby and if capacity too little, take LNWR route from Winchnor, through Lichfield and Bescot. Between Manchester and Birmingham, reinstate line through Peak district and go south via Ambergate and Derby.

Going towards Scotland, the Settle Carlisle could be widened out to UIC and electrified. The cost could be contriolled by shutting it for a year and handing it over to contractors (much cost is payments to operators who cannot run services)

Are there any issues in the above - yes, of course, but there is easily available CAPACITY north of Birmingham which, while costing billions would be doable and much cheaper than HS2 Y sections. The real solution to traffic demand in London is to spread the economy throughout the country instead of insisting ever-more people work in London and commute ever longer distances.

Yes, you could invest in some new bits of line in the area between Sheffield and Leeds, you could build a chord at Pontefract to link that line with the tediously low speeds (due to mining subsidence) to another one, great.

But none of that addresses the lack of paths between Sheffield and Meadowhall (e..g the two track throat to Sheffield station). None of that addresses the capacity problems at Leeds station on lines towards South Yorkshire.

Fine, re-open some old bits of route in between, but if neither Sheffield nor Leeds stations can cope with additional trains then it won't make any difference.

This is why the idea of building some nice long platforms adjacent to Leeds station (which take away some of the London services from the main shed) is a great idea.

As for the other ideas... Manchester to Birmingham via the Peak District? Is this a serious attempt to increase capacity at busy stations or a wishlist of rural re-openings dressed up to look like an alternative to HS2?

Then I would expect the whole raft of proposals including Skipton-Colne, Uckfield -Lewes, Tavistock, Wisbeach etc to be reviewed in the light of this new methodology in the near future as a matter of course. Any attempt to put off, or obfuscate on this would be just another cynical ploy to avoid reopenings.

Yay - at a time when there's no money/ resources to do things that we have already committed to (e.g. electrification to Bristol/ Oxford/ Swansea/ Leicester/ Windermere...), let's spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on yet more feasibility studies on re-opening lines in relatively empty bits of countryside, because the last lot of studies didn't give you the answer that you wanted.

The Aberystwyth - Carmarthen Re-opening Study industry must be one of the biggest job creators in Wales, given how many times that one seems to crop up

 

[The Ham]

As for the other ideas... Manchester to Birmingham via the Peak District? Is this a serious attempt to increase capacity at busy stations or a wishlist of rural re-openings dressed up to look like an alternative to HS2?

It's not the first time, or even the first proposal, an alternative to HS2 has suggested a reopening.

There's a time and a place for reopenings and it could well be that HS2 makes some reopenings more viable (so as to provide a better network to connect with HS2 stations.

 

[B&I]

Yes, you could invest in some new bits of line in the area between Sheffield and Leeds, you could build a chord at Pontefract to link that line with the tediously low speeds (due to mining subsidence) to another one, great.

But none of that addresses the lack of paths between Sheffield and Meadowhall (e..g the two track throat to Sheffield station). None of that addresses the capacity problems at Leeds station on lines towards South Yorkshire.

Fine, re-open some old bits of route in between, but if neither Sheffield nor Leeds stations can cope with additional trains then it won't make any difference.

This is why the idea of building some nice long platforms adjacent to Leeds station (which take away some of the London services from the main shed) is a great idea.

Erm, HS2 doesn't add any capacity between Sheffield and Leeds either, does it ?

 

[Ianno87]

Erm, HS2 doesn't add any capacity between Sheffield and Leeds either, does it ?

If Birmingham-Leeds is do-able on HS2 services, trains on the existing Birmingham-Sheffield-Leeds route (the fastest between Sheffield and Leeds currently) will suddenly have a whole lot more space on them.

 

[B&I]

If Birmingham-Leeds is do-able on HS2 services, trains on the existing Birmingham-Sheffield-Leeds route (the fastest between Sheffield and Leeds currently) will suddenly have a whole lot more space on them.

I meant line capacity, not seating capacity

 

[BluePenguin]

North of Tonbridge there is no capacity to speed up the service because the paths previously used by Ashford fast trains were taken by an increased service to Tunbridge Wells when HS1 opened.
I cant see many commuters changing back from HS1 to the classic lines because of the new fast service.

Then they should get get rid of them to release the paths. Tunbridge Wells already has a quick service and so they don't need these stupid terminating trains that don't serve anywhere beyond. They are simply path blockers!

Instead, Sevenoaks stopping services should be extended to Tonbridge to include Hildenborough and Orpington and so then the terminating services to Tunbridge Wells are no longer required. Alternatively they could re-introduce Ashford stopping services if there is no space at Tonbridge for terminating trains to sit.

 

[johnmoly]

I'm still positive its going to end at Birmingham Curzon Street. They will suddenly find out they are out of money, so the extensions further north will have to go on the back burner. Then typical government they will forget all about it, after all it would have achieved its first priority in extending the commuting distance from London.

 

[snowball]

I'm still positive its going to end at Birmingham Curzon Street.

Even Phase 1 doesn't end at Birmingham Curzon Street. It ends at Handsacre. Birmingham is on a spur.

 

[The Planner]

Details....

 

[Bald Rick]

Then they should get get rid of them to release the paths. Tunbridge Wells already has a quick service and so they don't need these stupid terminating trains that don't serve anywhere beyond. They are simply path blockers!

Instead, Sevenoaks stopping services should be extended to Tonbridge to include Hildenborough and Orpington and so then the terminating services to Tunbridge Wells are no longer required. Alternatively they could re-introduce Ashford stopping services if there is no space at Tonbridge for terminating trains to sit.

Have you actually seen these trains when they arrive at London Bridge? They’re a bit full...

 

[BluePenguin]

Have you actually seen these trains when they arrive at London Bridge? They’re a bit full...

No I haven't as I am usually trying to ram onto or out of another mainline service lol. Granted, these trains are popular and are well used. However I am interested to know where the hoards of people which travel on them come from, surely the capacity is not entirely made of up Tunbridge Wells or Tonbride residents.

Both areas are already served by directs services from Hastings, Ramsgate and Dover. It doesn't make sense to change onto the Tunbridge Wells metro services you know what I mean?