More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[LNW-GW Joint]

And yet it had cross party support?

In 2009-10, there was indeed positive cross-party support and the LibDems had some influence over the Tories' transport policy in the 2010-15 coalition.
The coalition also got the massive CP5 investment in electrification and in Crossrail.
Since 2015 the Tory backbenchers have had everything their own Nimby-ish way, despite continuing front bench and Labour support.
Parliament in general also seemed hostile to the developments at Euston, and who can blame them after massive demolition and disruption, with nothing to show for it other than a new LU traction substation.
There's plenty of blame heaped on HS2 Ltd, but they are a creature of the government just like Network Rail now is.

 

[Xavi]

Treasury didn't write the original cost estimates that have proven to be ludicrous underestimates.
HS2 did

You’ve clearly no idea how government works. Let’s spell it out.

Any capital project has to be signed off by Treasury. Any estimate from a sketch on a map has a huge range of possible outcomes. These are presented as P50 (50 per cent probability of costs being at the figure or less), P80, P95. Treasury will choose the version that suits its budget plans at the time. Invariably, that’s the lower probability. Government wants the project to be announced for good news at the time, and “we’ll blame someone else when it costs more” or “it will be someone else’s problem later”.

I have 30 years’ experience of this behaviour, and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon. As long as it continues, UK will fall further behind its competitors, and school ceilings will fall in.

we have had a succession of whistleblowers pointing out that the original estimates weren't worth the paper they were written on

P95 was very close to what phase 1 will outturn and did not originally include the additional tunnelling.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

You’ve clearly no idea how government works. Let’s spell it out.

Any capital project has to be signed off by Treasury. Any estimate from a sketch on a map has a huge range of possible outcomes. These are presented as P50 (50 per cent probability of costs being at the figure or less), P80, P95. Treasury will choose the version that suits its budget plans at the time. Invariably, that’s the lower probability. Government wants the project to be announced for good news at the time, and “we’ll blame someone else when it costs more” or “it will be someone else’s problem later”.

I have 30 years’ experience of this behaviour, and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon. As long as it continues, UK will fall further behind its competitors, and school ceilings will fall in.


P95 was very close to what phase 1 will outturn and did not originally include the additional tunnelling.

Out of curiosity, do you have a solution to this problem?

 

[Xavi]

Out of curiosity, do you have a solution to this problem?

No. The best chance would be abolition of The Treasury (operates with the mindset of a teenager running a school tuck shop), and replacing with a department that had no influence once monies were allocated to departments.

 

[Parjon]

No its inception was from existing rail lines lacking capacity and lessons learnt from the WCML upgrade.

Nope. It came out of a lobby group, and was put into play by an outgoing government clutching at straws ahead of election. Since then even worse people have had hands in it.

 

[HSTEd]

P95 was very close to what phase 1 will outturn and did not originally include the additional tunnelling.

The operational purpose of the P95 budget is to try and quantify the worst case liability if the scheme is to fail totally.
It is not supposed to be used for economic planning et al, because 19 times out of 20 the budget will come in under that.

If it was used for economic planning, the scheme would never get approved in the first place!

The reality is, however, that the extra tunneling will not be a major contributor to the cost overruns.
Indeed the extra tunneling on the NNML has reduced the scheme cost once realistic estimates of surface costs were compiled (Rather than the worthless ones used before the scheme started building).

Tunneling is one of the few things in modern railway construction that is fairly resistant to runaway cost overruns.

 

[SynthD]

No. The best chance would be abolition of The Treasury (operates with the mindset of a teenager running a school tuck shop), and replacing with a department that had no influence once monies were allocated to departments.

It isn’t far off that now. The treasury is powerful because the next budget is only six months away (with proposals for three a year), and contracts are long term.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

Why is Labour (at least being the Labour national leadership) being ambiguous about committing to completing HS2 in light of the rumours that the Conservative government may scrap the project at Crewe or even Birmingham. I am pragmatic but I fully understand that HS2 is about releasing capacity and if it was truncated at Crewe or even Birmingham that does not release sufficient capacity in North I don't understand why Labour cannot seem to understand that surely for an incoming Labour government to scrap the route to Manchester would be politically damaging especially with the likes of the Northern mayors and MPs or could it be, as I have read has been suggested, that some Northern Labour MPs in constituencies in the GM area where the route passes through could be concerned about nimby voters surely the economic benefits of HS2 outweigh that and should Labour understand that government budgets especially capital budgets are not the same as a household budget I could see Conservatives thinking that way but Labour? I thought that governments that have their own currency could create as much money as they want though QE etc - google Richard Murphy Modern Monetary Theory so why is Labour so concerned are the concerned about swing voters who voted Tory and they need to win back? Do you think I should wright to my (Labour) MP I normally get a reply from my MP but I did email her re: HS2 once and did not get a reply back. Yes I do think Labour would be an improvement on the current Conservative government and a fresh change being pragmatic but they do need to be a bit more forward and committing to infrastructure that will bring long term economic benefits IMO.

 

[trebor79]

Even if HS2 was just Old Oak Common to Birmingham and Handsacre it would still release capacity on the WCML and speed up journeys from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool considerably.

I disagree as the faff and time changing to Elizabeth Line will negate any time saving. So no one is going to pay a premium to use HS2.

What they should have done is build a much cheaper line to get fright off ECML and ECML, and release capacity for more passenger services that way.

 

[Rail Ranger]

I understand that Old Oak Common HS2 station will only have the capacity to accommodate trains to Birmingham.

 

[The Planner]

I disagree as the faff and time changing to Elizabeth Line will negate any time saving. So no one is going to pay a premium to use HS2.

What they should have done is build a much cheaper line to get fright off ECML and ECML, and release capacity for more passenger services that way.

The ECML doesnt have anywhere near the freight levels of the WCML.

I understand that Old Oak Common HS2 station will only have the capacity to accommodate trains to Birmingham.

Its 3tph, you could do that on one platform if you wanted.

 

[stuu]

I disagree as the faff and time changing to Elizabeth Line will negate any time saving. So no one is going to pay a premium to use HS2.

Only if your destination is within walking distance of Euston. Most people won't be heading there, so would need to use the tube or bus or taxi to get to where they are actually going. OOC to Oxford St is ~8 minutes on the EL, vs 5 on the Victoria Line. Heading for the City it's about the same journey time

 

[GardenRail]

Why is Labour (at least being the Labour national leadership) being ambiguous about committing to completing HS2 in light of the rumours that the Conservative government may scrap the project at Crewe or even Birmingham. I am pragmatic but I fully understand that HS2 is about releasing capacity and if it was truncated at Crewe or even Birmingham that does not release sufficient capacity in North I don't understand why Labour cannot seem to understand that surely for an incoming Labour government to scrap the route to Manchester would be politically damaging especially with the likes of the Northern mayors and MPs or could it be, as I have read has been suggested, that some Northern Labour MPs in constituencies in the GM area where the route passes through could be concerned about nimby voters surely the economic benefits of HS2 outweigh that and should Labour understand that government budgets especially capital budgets are not the same as a household budget I could see Conservatives thinking that way but Labour? I thought that governments that have their own currency could create as much money as they want though QE etc - google Richard Murphy Modern Monetary Theory so why is Labour so concerned are the concerned about swing voters who voted Tory and they need to win back? Do you think I should wright to my (Labour) MP I normally get a reply from my MP but I did email her re: HS2 once and did not get a reply back. Yes I do think Labour would be an improvement on the current Conservative government and a fresh change being pragmatic but they do need to be a bit more forward and committing to infrastructure that will bring long term economic benefits IMO.

Because Labour don't want a properly functioning, integrated public transport system either. That's why it bemuses me that people think Labour will be God's Gift to the North. I mean, come on, they couldn't even give Leeds some Trams. So why Northerners think Labour will build them a new railway, who knows.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes, 12 trains per hour would start empty from OOC.

Correct there would be 12tph on current Crosrail service but would still be insufficient capacity for a HS2 inclusive of 2A and 2B Western.

Kier Starmer as MP for the constituency that Euston is located, is not going to want a vast unfinished construction site in his constituency that would blight a large part of his constituency and raise awkward questions with those residents whose homes or businesses were compulsory purchased for something that was never built. Plus if Labour want to be seen as serious on the Northern Powerhouse and levelling up, resurrecting the Crewe / Manchester leg would be easy move to do.

Even if HS2 was just Old Oak Common to Birmingham and Handsacre it would still release capacity on the WCML and speed up journeys from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool considerably.

Whilst it would do this it wouldn't be anything like the full benefits and of course you would almost certainly still need WCML services from Euston if HS services terminated at OOC.

 

[Xavi]

The operational purpose of the P95 budget is to try and quantify the worst case liability if the scheme is to fail totally.

I agree that P95 would never be used when you have an outline or full business case.

However, there is no developed scope or fully costed plans when capital projects are first announced. Any estimate will have a huge risk. Ministers want the good news to happen and make the ‘budget’ fit the wider political agenda of the moment. Obviously, there’s no proper analysis of benefits at this stage either.

For HS2 and other capital projects, critics (Berkeley) refer to the initial cost ‘estimate’ through the lifetime of the project irrespective of actual scope and construction inflation.

Only in 2020 was phase one scope and design sufficiently developed to provide costs with any degree of confidence.

The 2013 and 2015 reports should have included greater risk, but again that wouldn’t have fitted the political agenda at that time. Don’t believe for one moment that reports published by HS2 are truly independent of ministerial influence.

 

[Richardr]

Why is Labour (at least being the Labour national leadership) being ambiguous about committing to completing HS2 in light of the rumours that the Conservative government may scrap the project at Crewe or even Birmingham. I am pragmatic but I fully understand that HS2 is about releasing capacity and if it was truncated at Crewe or even Birmingham that does not release sufficient capacity in North I don't understand why Labour cannot seem to understand that surely for an incoming Labour government to scrap the route to Manchester would be politically damaging especially with the likes of the Northern mayors and MPs or could it be, as I have read has been suggested, that some Northern Labour MPs in constituencies in the GM area where the route passes through could be concerned about nimby voters surely the economic benefits of HS2 outweigh that and should Labour understand that government budgets especially capital budgets are not the same as a household budget I could see Conservatives thinking that way but Labour? I thought that governments that have their own currency could create as much money as they want though QE etc - google Richard Murphy Modern Monetary Theory so why is Labour so concerned are the concerned about swing voters who voted Tory and they need to win back? Do you think I should wright to my (Labour) MP I normally get a reply from my MP but I did email her re: HS2 once and did not get a reply back. Yes I do think Labour would be an improvement on the current Conservative government and a fresh change being pragmatic but they do need to be a bit more forward and committing to infrastructure that will bring long term economic benefits IMO.

The Labour Party are wary of any spending commitment over and above Conservative commitments for electoral purposes, and see not following the government for now a trap for PR purposes. This need not be the case if [and only if] they form the government following an election.

Personally I would completely ignore anything Mr Murphy says - in particular expanding the money supply will increase inflation - why do you think governments in any western country do not spend like there is no tomorrow?

Per the question further up, to my mind governments in this country only look at cash flow rather than proper accounts, and in particular what for a company would be an asset. That means that capital expenditure has been cut to the bone [transport, school buildings, hospital buildings being examples] as it is easier to do that. Short termism leading to longer term problems, and the complete lack of growth that we have had in the past decade and a half.

 

[Snow1964]

I understand that Old Oak Common HS2 station will only have the capacity to accommodate trains to Birmingham.

Trains to/from Birmingham direction can use all 6 HS2 platforms, (only one outer pair and centre pair in Euston direction).

The signalling (ETCS) can comfortably handle 2-3 trains per hour per platform terminating at Old Oak Common, roughly 15 trains per hour.

The limit is flat crossovers, so would be more like every 3-5 minutes because cannot have train leaving and departing same time when using furthest 2 platforms. The layout is scissors crossover west of main platform turnouts (near Victoria Road), then each track splitting into 2 either side of an island, with a third island between other two which can be served by either track.

Can't have parallel moves when scissors crossover is used, and that is needed to get to furthest island. I suspect ECTS will see the scissors crossover as next signalling section, so train would be able to depart platform and approach towards the crossover whilst it is not clear. In old parlance because crossover is bit further up the track, would be another signal protecting it, rather than in section covered by platform starter.

However whilst OOC is used as a terminus there is a practical limit set by passenger movements to / from the trains. Whilst line might be able to carry 7000+ passengers per hour (at least 14 trains of 500), onward connections would struggle with that number.

 

[AndrewE]

However whilst OOC is used as a terminus there is a practical limit set by passenger movements to / from the trains. Whilst line might be able to carry 7000+ passengers per hour (at least 14 trains of 500), onward connections would struggle with that number.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but I guess quite a few will be changing to go west, to Heathrow or Reading etc. (People who would otherwise have travelled via Euston and Padd.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why is Labour (at least being the Labour national leadership) being ambiguous about committing to completing HS2

It's politics in the period leading up to a general election.
Labour don't want to commit to anything until they see the books when they get in.
Then they will apply their priorities to the spend - but don't expect rail and HS2 to get special treatment.
If in the meantime the Tories cut expenditure, that's fine by Labour because it saves them an unpopular job when they get in.
Expect the Labour manifesto to be vague on details, even if HS2 gets in there.
There are many more demands on government funding.

QE is dangerous unless every other country is doing the same (eg for Covid), otherwise you devalue the currency and increase inflation.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Treasury didn't write the original cost estimates that have proven to be ludicrous underestimates.

No they didn't but HS2 is stuffed full of consultants who were retained with specific commissions for cost estimating and its not as if this infrastructure hasn't been built before or they haven't had sufficient development and planning time. Then there was the High Speed Rail Group providing oversight also with its own bunch of consultants as well as DfT employing its own consultants on oversight so plenty of opportunity for the red flag to be raised. Nothing learned from CrossRail.

 

[camflyer]

I disagree as the faff and time changing to Elizabeth Line will negate any time saving. So no one is going to pay a premium to use HS2.

What they should have done is build a much cheaper line to get fright off ECML and ECML, and release capacity for more passenger services that way.

Good luck convincing the chattering classes in the Shires to have a slow freight line going past their back yards!

 

[matacaster]

I disagree as the faff and time changing to Elizabeth Line will negate any time saving. So no one is going to pay a premium to use HS2.

What they should have done is build a much cheaper line to get fright off ECML and ECML, and release capacity for more passenger services that way.

That is the correct answer

 

[Xavi]

No they didn't but HS2 is stuffed full of consultants who were retained with specific commissions for cost estimating and its not as if this infrastructure hasn't been built before or they haven't had sufficient development and planning time.

As I have said, Treasury chose the number in a very broad range (because there’s no defined scope) that suited the wider message (fiscal responsibility) at the time. Obviously, it was the lower number, not the higher.

 

[zwk500]

That is the correct answer

Not really, when you consider which lines and terminals a freight line would need.to connect to (Wembley, Daventry, Acton, Northampton, Manchester, Crewe, Liverpool). Lots of surface connections in London for that.

 

[Roast Veg]

Its 3tph, you could do that on one platform if you wanted.

Don't give HMT any ideas!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't give HMT any ideas!

The Spanish economy solution is to only build a single track (with dynamic loops).

 

[Dan G]

On radio 4 Prof Tony Travers just said that £6-7bn is being spent on HS2 a year, and that's projected to continue to 2040+.

That is, by any stretch, a lot.

On the other hand if HS2 is just left as a shuttle between west London and Birmingham the benefit to cost ratio will be very small.

I mean to put that in perspective the part-electrification of the GWML was £2.8bn.

I know people try to argue that HS2 is funded by special money that somehow couldn't be spent elsewhere but the truth it's a real drain, preventing capital investment with much higher BCR elsewhere.

 

[JonathanH]

I know people try to argue that HS2 is funded by special money that somehow couldn't be spent elsewhere but the truth it's a real drain, preventing capital investment with much higher BCR elsewhere.

That first bit is true. There is no money for anything which doesn't generate revenue in the long term. However, as you suggest it isn't unique to HS2 and if a project could be found with a higher BCR, that would appear to be a better use of 'special money'.

 

[SynthD]

I know people try to argue that HS2 is funded by special money that somehow couldn't be spent elsewhere but the truth it's a real drain, preventing capital investment with much higher BCR elsewhere.

Is the difference that the government are willing to make loans for HS2 based on future receipts, but not for GWR electrification, which must be paid for from NR's upgrades pot? The truth depends on how big a picture you're willing to look at.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is the difference that the government are willing to make loans for HS2 based on future receipts, but not for GWR electrification, which must be paid for from NR's upgrades pot? The truth depends on how big a picture you're willing to look at.

At the moment both sorts of spend are decided in the Treasury, based on BCR, with delivery via DfT.
HS2 is separate from NR capital spend, with different scrutiny and advisors (including regular parliamentary reports), but in the end it's down to the Chancellor to decide.
NR's spend tends to be in smaller chunks, but is still big bucks for things like GW/MML electrification and TRU.
HS2's specific issue is how big a baseline you need to make the whole scheme viable.