Restarting HS2a

[Elecman]

Wonder how quickly the 3 Mayors can persuade Louise Haigh to restart HS2a to get it to Crewe ( using thier 3rd party / government funding) and reapply the safeguarding for HS2b

 

[JonathanH]

Was there anything in the manifesto which actually suggested it will restart at all?

 

[HSTEd]

Probably never.
The financial situation is not particularly good, especially considering all the tax and spending commitments Labour made in the manifesto and during the campaign.

At the last estimate HS2a was put at up to £7bn by HS2 themselves, it will be significantly more now. And that's before we include any further cost growth beyond HS2's estimate.

If the Mayors had third party funding, we would already know because they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

 

[philosopher]

Wonder how quickly the 3 Mayors can persuade Louise Haigh to restart HS2a to get it to Crewe ( using thier 3rd party / government funding) and reapply the safeguarding for HS2b

Labour have been very quiet on HS2 and I think they did not mention at all in their manifesto so in my view, we have essentially no idea whether Labour will restart HS2a. Personally, my guess is that they will safeguard the land for HS2a, but not make a decision on whether to build it until later in the government term. Whether they restart it will depend on the government’s financial situation in the late 2020s.

 

[Sniffingmoose]

Probably not a popular view on here but money is too short so I really hope its not restarted. There are a lot more priorities than this project outside the railway. Also the industry and goverment has a lot to do to improve industrial relations in the rail industry first so we get a reliable 7 day a week servcice. If we are going to spend money on transport, I believe its better to spend local public transport and solving the industrial relations problems first.

 

[Topological]

The challenge is that the Manchester to Liverpool line has a lot of value and should be built. That line requires the HS2 tunnel.

It may be prudent to go for the Piccadilly design that permits HS2 to reach Manchester then say "review when economy recovers" to actually building the line.

The fact that HS2 should be built is neither here nor there, it is not politically high on the agenda and was not mentioned because it is a negative story in an election campaign. No mention = not happening really.

 

[MarkyT]

Probably not a popular view on here but money is too short so I really hope its not restarted. There are a lot more priorities than this project outside the railway. Also the industry and goverment has a lot to do to improve industrial relations in the rail industry first so we get a reliable 7 day a week servcice. If we are going to spend money on transport, I believe its better to spend local public transport and solving the industrial relations problems first.

If nothing else, a Stafford bypass should be built promptly to avoid the series of major capacity and speed bottlenecks in that vicinity. That could help local train service provision immediately too. Whatever happens, any further construction is probably a decade or more away, plenty of time to tackle other issues and get the country's finances more in order, tweak the scheme details as expedient and build a new business, environmental and social case that fully acknowledges the scope and benefits of local and freight service improvements (including reliability) the scheme can unlock on existing lines it relieves.

 

[Nottingham59]

It would make sense to safeguard the route at least as far as Baldwin's Gate, and buy the land.
But not start work for another five years.

 

[Mgameing123]

It will be built at some point. The additional HS2 on the existing lines will cause a huge bottleneck so HS2A will come but not now.

 

[Peter Sarf]

HS2 did not figure in any party's manifesto iirc.

The railway needs to smarten itself up.
Industrial relations and reliability need to be sorted out so that public opinion takes a positive interest.
More subtly the cost of projects needs to be brought under control. Also the methods of working need to be modernised.

Then the railways have to wait until money is available - join the queue behind the NHS and roads I am afraid.

The impression I get out in the real world is that most people do not care about the railways (they never use the railways) or a minority hate the railways (have to use the railways).

It is a brave minister that spends money on something that the voting public are indifferent to. Even if the railways have strategic importance that is trumped by all the other demands on the limited money available.

One more considered point made to me was - if the railways are short of drivers then why build HS2 when that increases the demand for drivers.

It is a shame that HS2 Phase2a will not be built soon enough and will make HS2 Phase1 look like a bit of a white elephant.

 

[Elecman]

Probably never.
The financial situation is not particularly good, especially considering all the tax and spending commitments Labour made in the manifesto and during the campaign.

At the last estimate HS2a was put at up to £7bn by HS2 themselves, it will be significantly more now. And that's before we include any further cost growth beyond HS2's estimate.

If the Mayors had third party funding, we would already know because they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

But The mayors consortium scheme was different to HS2 and wouldn’t be built under the same Cost Plus contract arrangements as HS1 which are out of control.

 

[Nottingham59]

But The mayors consortium scheme was different to HS2 and wouldn’t be built under the same Cost Plus contract arrangements as HS1 which are out of control.

Of course it will be different. It will have a different name and different contracting arrangments. But it will be on the same alignment.

 

[Grimsby town]

It is a brave minister that spends money on something that the voting public are indifferent to. Even if the railways have strategic importance that is trumped by all the other demands on the limited money available.

Realistically money isn't in short supply. It can be created if needed, although it can be argued if that is sensible. Money is just there to ration resources which are in short supply. We have the resource to build phase 2a because its already building phase 1. Its simply a case of moving them on to 2a in a couple of years. The way to get costs under control is to provide certainty and a consistent pipeline of work. Phase 2a would provide that before moving on to something like NPR.

Realistically HS2 isn't taking resources away from the NHS. There may be some construction resource overlap but something like an OHLE engineer isn't going to be much use to the NHS. Not having a next stage of HS2 will likely mean that we'll lose loads of skilled staff to places like Australia or to other industries like Nuclear. It'll then cost more to get them back in 10 years time when it's decided we desperately need a Stafford bypass.

 

[PGAT]

HS2 did not figure in any party's manifesto iirc.

It showed up in the Lib Dems’

• Reviewing the Conservatives’ cancellation of the northern leg of HS2 to see if it can still be delivered in a way that provides value for money, including by encouraging private investment, or if an alternative is viable.

 

[HSTEd]

But The mayors consortium scheme was different to HS2 and wouldn’t be built under the same Cost Plus contract arrangements as HS1 which are out of control.

I am extremely skeptical the cost estimates for this new scheme will be any lower than the ones that HS2 was willing to admit to before cancellation.

Whatever whizz bang new financing arrangements are development, construction inflation is going to keep climbing faster than regular inflation.

Realistically HS2 isn't taking resources away from the NHS. There may be some construction resource overlap but something like an OHLE engineer isn't going to be much use to the NHS. Not having a next stage of HS2 will likely mean that we'll lose loads of skilled staff to places like Australia or to other industries like Nuclear. It'll then cost more to get them back in 10 years time when it's decided we desperately need a Stafford bypass.

Even overhead line engineers have a bunch of transferable skills that can be used in other sections of the economy.
Both in transport and outside it.
And would society care if the railway loses engineers to the nuclear industry? Society only has a finite pool of skilled people to spare.

 

[Grimsby town]

Even overhead line engineers have a bunch of transferable skills that can be used in other sections of the economy.
Both in transport and outside it.
And would society care if the railway loses engineers to the nuclear industry? Society only has a finite pool of skilled people to spare.

They do, but do they want to transfer to another industry or will they all will they just dissappear abroad? You're definitely going to lose some of the resource if you don't have consistent set of resources.

I don't think the general population do care about the logistics but government certainly should. The public will care when overcrowding on the WCML becomes an issue or when we don't have sufficient infrastructure to facilitate new housing.

 

[Gaelan]

Realistically money isn't in short supply. It can be created if needed, although it can be argued if that is sensible. Money is just there to ration resources which are in short supply. We have the resource to build phase 2a because its already building phase 1. Its simply a case of moving them on to 2a in a couple of years. The way to get costs under control is to provide certainty and a consistent pipeline of work. Phase 2a would provide that before moving on to something like NPR.

Well said.

 

[Sorcerer]

Labour made no reference to HS2 in their manifesto, but so far no commitments have really been made. With any luck, any planning reforms should enable it to eventually be restarted assuming the land is safeguarded since, while I would prefer the route to be done in full, it will be heavily held back and sullied by the systematic issues relating to infrastructure projects in this country. Hopefully long term this would also restore the eastern leg to Leeds to relieve some capacity on the Midland and East Coast Main Lines, but we'll have to take it one step at a time. After all one of the issues was having HS2 as one big project than a group of smaller ones like in Europe.

 

[HSTEd]

They do, but do they want to transfer to another industry or will they all will they just dissappear abroad? You're definitely going to lose some of the resource if you don't have consistent set of resources.

How valuable is that resource to society?
There are a lot of pressing problems in society today, society might prefer to sacrifice some of the rail workforce if it allows the rest to be redeployed somewhere else.

And guaranteeing a consistent flow of work does have disadvantages to weigh against its claimed advantages. It can quite easily lead to a situation where contractors know that their future work is guaranteed no matter how badly they perform.

I don't think the general population do care about the logistics but government certainly should. The public will care when overcrowding on the WCML becomes an issue or when we don't have sufficient infrastructure to facilitate new housing.

Rail capacity is vanishingly unlikely to lead to a significant restriction on the construction of housing.
I would suggest road capacity would be the most likely of the transport limitations to actually matter, but in any case we already have bottlenecks in water, power and such.
If you want to increase the availability of housing, railway construction would be an awful long way down the list of priorities to deploy workers/industrial output to.

 

[Solweytracker]

As part of his commentary during the Thurs/Fri overnight Sky News election special, (maybe about 4am!), Mayor of Gtr Manchester, Andy Burnham was adamant that HS2 needed to be continued north of Birmingham because the WCML just did not have the capacity to cope. So no doubt the lobbying will begin in earnest.

 

[MarkyT]

One more considered point made to me was - if the railways are short of drivers then why build HS2 when that increases the demand for drivers.

Faster services get more efficient use of a given pool of crew and rolling stock due to reduced round trip time; more round trips can be accomplished during a typical work shift.

It is a shame that HS2 Phase2a will not be built soon enough and will make HS2 Phase1 look like a bit of a white elephant.

Once Phase 1 is finished, no one will consider it anything but an integral part of the national infrastructure. Who is moaning about the original price of Crossrail now the Elizabeth Line is up and running and attracting unprecedented numbers of new riders to London's rail network? That Phase 1 will exist will make the business case for further extensions extremely attractive.

 

[Nottingham59]

construction inflation is going to keep climbing faster than regular inflation.

I don't think that's necessarily true at all.

A lot of general construction inflation was due to rampant property price inflation and the ballooning of energy costs after the Ukraine invasion. Both of those factors have subsided.

And HS2 appears to me to have generated its own specific construction inflation. They awarded the construction to competing consortia involving nearly all the major players in the UK on cost plus contracts. And then set them off all at the same time to start on the largest civil engineering project in Europe. So each consortium was competing for enviornmental consultants and archeologists and surveyors and civil engineers and construction workers and tunnellers and TBMs and concrete and everything else all at the same time. And HS2 was surprised that the cost of tunnellers and concrete went up, at a rate faster than inflation.

At one time HS2 was taking 15% of the entire concrete production of the UK. And guess who provides the figures to calculate the inflation in concrete prices that are used to determine what payments are due under those cost-plus contracts? All the major civil engineering players in the UK. Funny that ....

 

[Energy]

Labour didn't mention HS2 in their manifesto but they didn't need to, they were comfortably ahead in the polls, and other policies, like bringing rail in-house, are less divisive.

Mentioning HS2 could have put them in a situation where they'd have to commit to it before knowing the full possible costs

As part of his commentary during the Thurs/Fri overnight Sky News election special, (maybe about 4am!), Mayor of Gtr Manchester, Andy Burnham was adamant that HS2 needed to be continued north of Birmingham because the WCML just did not have the capacity to cope. So no doubt the lobbying will begin in earnest.

Birmingham's mayor is also now Labour.

Realistically money isn't in short supply. It can be created if needed, although it can be argued if that is sensible. Money is just there to ration resources which are in short supply. We have the resource to build phase 2a because its already building phase 1. Its simply a case of moving them on to 2a in a couple of years. The way to get costs under control is to provide certainty and a consistent pipeline of work. Phase 2a would provide that before moving on to something like NPR.

Agreed, Labour will want some time to review the numbers and talk to HS2 & its contractors. I think we will see an announcement on 2a going ahead at the same time as more details on rail reform.

 

[Grimsby town]

How valuable is that resource to society?
There are a lot of pressing problems in society today, society might prefer to sacrifice some of the rail workforce if it allows the rest to be redeployed somewhere else.

But in reality that resource isn't available straight away anyway e.g. its on phase 1 and would need retraining. In the medium term it might be possible to reallocate resources but it'll be after this parliament. HS2 phase 2a is possible to start in this parliament. I don't doubt that a lot of voters would basically put all resources into health, but that isn't a sensible way to run a country. Its difficult to argue that the UK spends too much on transport infrastructure.

And guaranteeing a consistent flow of work does have disadvantages to weigh against its claimed advantages. It can quite easily lead to a situation where contractors know that their future work is guaranteed no matter how badly they perform.

Is there evidence of that? The countries that do have more certain pipelines of work definitely have lower costs. Metrolink had a lot of success with a consistent pipeline of work.

Rail capacity is vanishingly unlikely to lead to a significant restriction on the construction of housing.
I would suggest road capacity would be the most likely of the transport limitations to actually matter, but in any case we already have bottlenecks in water, power and such.
If you want to increase the availability of housing, railway construction would be an awful long way down the list of priorities to deploy workers/industrial output to.

Labour have committed to building around rail stations so rail capacity will be needed. Rail also reduces pressure on roads.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Realistically money isn't in short supply. It can be created if needed, although it can be argued if that is sensible. Money is just there to ration resources which are in short supply. We have the resource to build phase 2a because its already building phase 1. Its simply a case of moving them on to 2a in a couple of years. The way to get costs under control is to provide certainty and a consistent pipeline of work. Phase 2a would provide that before moving on to something like NPR.

Realistically HS2 isn't taking resources away from the NHS. There may be some construction resource overlap but something like an OHLE engineer isn't going to be much use to the NHS. Not having a next stage of HS2 will likely mean that we'll lose loads of skilled staff to places like Australia or to other industries like Nuclear. It'll then cost more to get them back in 10 years time when it's decided we desperately need a Stafford bypass.

Not forgetting that Labour have mad achieving economic growth a key part of their economic strategy, but how are they going to achieve that growth if they don‘t invest in schemes like HS2a to deliver it?

 

[Grimsby town]

.And HS2 appears to me to have generated its own specific construction inflation. They awarded the construction to competing consortia involving nearly all the major players in the UK on cost plus contracts. And then set them off all at the same time to start on the largest civil engineering project in Europe. So each consortium was competing for enviornmental consultants and archeologists and surveyors and civil engineers and construction workers and tunnellers and TBMs and concrete and everything else all at the same time. And HS2 was surprised that the cost of tunnellers and concrete went up, at a rate faster than inflation.

At one time HS2 was taking 15% of the entire concrete production of the UK. And guess who provides the figures to calculate the inflation in concrete prices that are used to determine what payments are under those cost-plus contracts? All the major civil engineering players in the UK. Funny that ....

With a consistent pipeline that should be less of an issue. The problem with HS2 was that the government didn't give any certainty that it would happen. Then one day in 2020 they said it would happen. Suddenly the firms involved in HS2 had to quickly find the resources to deliver HS2. That causes inflation.

 

[HSTEd]

But in reality that resource isn't available straight away anyway e.g. its on phase 1 and would need retraining. In the medium term it might be possible to reallocate resources but it'll be after this parliament.

The majority of the workforce will be general construction people who could be moved directly to other construction projects without significant retraining.
Very few highly specialised rail construction people have been employed so far because none of the rail specific stuff has actually started (track, signalling, overhead wiring etc).

HS2 phase 2a is possible to start in this parliament. I don't doubt that a lot of voters would basically put all resources into health, but that isn't a sensible way to run a country. Its difficult to argue that the UK spends too much on transport infrastructure.

There are a lot of forms of transport infrastructure other than the railway!

Is there evidence of that? The countries that do have more certain pipelines of work definitely have lower costs. Metrolink had a lot of success with a consistent pipeline of work.

It's a well documented effect in defence procurement circles, as well as to a lesser extent in the nuclear industry.
Contractors realise a project is impossible to cancel and that future work is essentially guaranteed, so they have no incentive not to run up the bill to get more money.

Metrolink also didn't give the sort of cast iron commitment to future phases that is being expected here. If the contractors messed it up the project could and would be cancelled. Indeed the "big bang" expansion was abandoned after the failure of the congestion charging referendum in favour of smaller projects let sequentially.

Labour have committed to building around rail stations so rail capacity will be needed. Rail also reduces pressure on roads.

Even if they commit to building around rail stations, that does not mean that the primary transport method for the houses will be rail.
A lot of houses are built around rail stations and road remains the dominant transport method in those areas.

And how much additional housing will be built where HS2 capacity release will actually impact things?

Not forgetting that Labour have mad achieving economic growth a key part of their economic strategy, but how are they going to achieve that growth if they don‘t invest in schemes like HS2a to deliver it?

Most energy policy and transport policy wonks (including myself on the former category) have enough project proposals to fill whole books.
There is no shortage of possible schemes, and resources are not unlimited.

HS2 Phase 2A doesn't even have a particularly good BCR.

 

[Snow1964]

Probably worth noting some of Louise Haigh's comments

In November 2021, when Integrated Rail Plan was published cutting Eastern leg. "This report was more than 12 months overdue, and it definitely was not worth the wait,” she said in a statement. “The prime minister has once again shown people across the North of England that they do not matter to him or his government."

In February 2023, at an appearance at the Northern Transport Summit, Haigh outlined how a labour government would “back the North and build infrastructure fit for the century ahead”. This included delivering Northern Powerhouse rail and HS2 in full.

In September 2023, speech in Parliament.
“What started out as a modern infrastructure plan left by the last Labour government linking our largest northern cities, after 13 years of Tory incompetence, waste and broken promises will have turned into a humiliating Conservative failure. A great rail betrayal,” she said. “£45bn and the least possible economic impact from the original plan. £45bn and the North left with nothing. But frankly […] what would we expect from a prime minister that doesn’t travel through the north of England on rail? He only ever flies over it.”

In December 2023 when Labour convened its rail review board, headed up by former Siemens chief Jürgen Maier, Haigh stated: “Labour are serious about delivering transport infrastructure fit for the century ahead. That’s why I’m delighted Jürgen Maier will lead an expert review on delivering infrastructure better, faster and cost effectively.”

In March 2024, Whitehall sources briefed The Telegraph that Haigh was hoping to reinstate Phase 2a between Birmingham and Crewe.

In July 2024, Haigh becomes Transport Minister and .......
[insert what happens / doesn't happen next ]

 

[Nottingham59]

Very few highly specialised rail construction people have been employed so far because none of the rail specific stuff has actually started (track, signalling, overhead wiring etc).

And HS2 seems likely to fall into the same trap again with these inputs. They haven't awarded any rail contracts yet. And when they do the cost of all that rail-specific stuff will go through the roof.

EDIT: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/2...ts-imminent-for-track-and-depot-construction#

High Speed 2 expects to award track contracts worth around £1.5 billion in the second quarter of 2024.

The deals come in three lots: Urban, including the Birmingham section (value estimated by HS2 in 2020 as £434 million), Central (£526m), and North (£566m).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Sunak notion when he cancelled HS2a/b was that the money would be spent on other transport priorities which would be delivered quicker - "Network North".
This included action on bus fares, potholes and a rigmarole of minor local transport improvements countrywide.
Some of those projects have already started - ie the money is already being spent.

Before the new DfT pronounces on HS2a/b, it will have to review "Network North" and decide how to deal with the promises made for that programme.
I think Louise Haigh and Rachel Reeves will take their time to decide if and how to progress HS2, while at the same time not doing anything stupid such as selling off land earmarked under the existing legislation.
I'd have thought the Autumn Statement is where we might find some initial answers, but the big numbers will have to wait till the next spending review.
The King's Speech at the opening of the next parliament might also give some clues.

HS2 Phase 2a was supposed to be costed better than phase1, because it is mostly on the surface with more measurable contractor costs, and no stations.
The aim was for some of the contracts to be across both phase 1 and 2a (eg the railway construction), with economies of scale.
That isn't now happening, thanks to Sunak - and Phase 1's railway contracts still haven't been let.
There's bound to be a big investigation of HS2 costs, before any major new contracts are let.