Restarting HS2a

[Peter Sarf]

Whilst the additional tunneling in the chilterns increased the cost of the scheme, some of the additional tunneling imposed on HS2 is projected to have reduced scheme costs.
See the original plan to demolish and rebuild Hangar Lane Gyratory to avoid a tunnel out of London - which better cost estimates demonstrated dwarfed the supposed savings from avoiding tunnels.

In any case, extra tunnels are unlikely to represent a dominant portion of the cost growth that HS2 has seen.


To cite just two, HS2 management decided to launch an unwinnable attempt to force the rewriting of the Technical Standards of Interoperability to meet HS2's desires.
We also have a lot of disturbing stories coming out of the company that have been extensively reported in the press, which may or may not be substantiated.

Nevertheless, neither of these things is a good sign in the slightest.

Personally, I think this scheme was probably doomed from the start, but the management have hardly covered themselves in glory on the road to here.
It certainly does not convince me, or apparently the new government, that giving HS2 more money to try and get more built is a particularly good idea.

The way things are going we will probably get a rebuild of Euston that include high speed platforms, but even that seems far from certain.
Asking for anything more than the bare minimum at the north end is almost certainly an exercise in futility.
The fifteen kilometres to Hixon would give us a high speed rail line that can at least approach its capacity capability, assuming some kind of station is built at Euston.
I think that that is ultimately the best the railway can hope for.

I think this is being realistic. But I fear not any time soon. In which case the big loss will be a strangled Euston development not capitalising fully on the disruption (demolition) already happening.

I really think Euston is the thing to save as that will be the big lost opportunity for the future. It will strangle HS2 phase one and make future extensions pointless.

 

[Elecman]

Phase 2a could be built by anyone doesn’t have to be the present HS2 organisation

 

[Fazaar1889]

I think this is being realistic. But I fear not any time soon. In which case the big loss will be a strangled Euston development not capitalising fully on the disruption (demolition) already happening.

I really think Euston is the thing to save as that will be the big lost opportunity for the future. It will strangle HS2 phase one and make future extensions pointless.

I sometimes wonder about this. Do we really need 11 platforms? The Shinkansen trains in Japan use 6 platforms at Tokyo station and it works quite well.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I sometimes wonder about this. Do we really need 11 platforms? The Shinkansen trains in Japan use 6 platforms at Tokyo station and it works quite well.

Interesting. I did prefer a smaller through station in London with a terminus (and depot for cleaning etc just beyond) at somewhere across London like Croydon (or somewhere else cheap and easy probably accessible from the Southern M25).

 

[Nottingham59]

What capacity will Phase 2a add? This is my analysis. What do other think?

I assume they follow the line of 2a for some distance, then build a low-cost connection onto the main network at one of Hixon, Baldwin's Gate, or Basford Hall.

== == == == == == == == ==
CURRENT CAPACITY AT COLWICH
The mixed traffic WCML has to pass through the flat crossing at Colwich. I believe the current maximum capacity is around 10tph (7 passenger and 3 freight). Does anyone have a better figure?

== == == ==
PHASE 1 ONLY
Build phase 1 only (Spur from HS2 Fradley Junction to the WCML slows at Handsacre). Mixed traffic still has to pass through the flat junction at Colwich, so the capacity will be the same as it is now, with similar destinations north of Handsacre. Comprising, perhaps:

• 5tph HS2 (all from London)
• 2tph WCML Passenger (one fast to Chester, one slow)
• 3tph WCML freight (as now)

Birmingham-Manchester traffic can still use the Cross-County route via Stoke on Trent, avoiding Colwich.
It may be possible to get three more passenger services through in peak hours, if freights are suspended at that time.

== == == == == ==
BUILD 2a TO HIXON
Build 2a to just short of Great Haywood, then curve northwards to join the Colwich-Stone line on a flat junction at Hixon. Cost: 18km of new track = £2.2bn. Radius of curve = 1500m (~100mph)



Only HS2 traffic will run on the Colwich-Stone line. Colwich Junction itself now has no crossing moves, as it funnels four tracks down to two, so it should cope with more traffic. I'll guess 2tph more. Is that resonable? This will give us:

From HS2

• 4tph HS2 via Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester (using the paths used by Avanti and Cross Country). Three from London, one from Curzon St. HS2 could deliver more trains to Stoke-on-Trent, but north of Stoke is limited by junctions in South Manchester. Wolverhampton and Stafford passengers to Macclesfield can be served by extending the Stoke stopper to Birmingham.
• 5tph HS2 towards Crewe via Colwich (1 Liverpool, 1 Manchester via Wilmslow (using the Avanti path), 3 to Preston and beyond)

From WCML Trent Valley

• 3tph WCML Passenger (One slow calling Stafford-Stoke-Crewe; one fast to Chester; one fast to Liverpool)
• 4tph WCML freight, if required

And from the Wolverhampton direction:

• 1tph stopper Birmingham to Liverpool
• 1tph stopper Birmingham - Stoke - Manchester
• 1tph limited stop Birmingham to Glasgow. With tilt, this would be the fastest service between Glasgow and Crewe.
• 4tph freights from Birmingham to Crewe yards, if required

== == == == == == == ==
BUILD 2a TO BALDWINS GATE
Build 2a to Baldwins Gate and merge onto the adjacent WCML fast lines to Crewe. Cost of 43.5km of new track = £5.2bn. Radius of curve = 2000m (~125mph),



Assuming a flat junction, the fasts from Baldwin's Gate to Crewe should have capacity of 8 - 10tph. And if they carried only HS2 traffic, then they could handle 12-16tph, which is far more than could pass through Crewe station.
Similarly the slows could take 8 - 10 tph. Paths through and beyond Crewe have become the constraint on the system, instead of Colwich.

From HS2

• 1tph Manchester via Colwich and Stoke
• 7tph to Crewe (1 to Manchester via Wilmslow, 1 to Man Victoria via Chat Moss, 2 to Liverpool, 3 to Preston and beyond)

From WCML Trent Valley

• 1tph Manchester via Colwich and Stoke
• 1tph slow (Stafford-Stoke-Crewe)
• 1tph Chester
• 1tph Liverpool
• 5tph freight to Crewe

From Wolverhampton

• 1tph Cross county Birmingham - Stoke - Manchester
• 1tph stopper Birmingham - Liverpool
• 4tph freight to Crewe, if required

This solution is no better than building to Hixon, which surprises me (Unless I've missed something). I guess it's because of the constraints getting Manchester from the South. And you now can't use HS2 for Birmingham-Manchester traffic without adding to the congestion north of Crewe.

This solution might allow more freight to get to Crewe, but I don't see there is the demand for 8tph freights to Crewe from the south at this time.

== == == == == ==
BUILD 2a TO CREWE
Build 2a to Crewe. 57km of new railway (£6.8bn) plus the cost of junctions (probably another billion).

Extending 2a to Crewe itself would make journeys faster, but would not add capacity to the the Baldwin's Gate solution.

And it cost a lot. This section of the 2a design calls for a high-speed grade-separated junction to accommodate the Phase 2b continuation down to the Crewe tunnel portal; and a separate and expensive grade-separated junction to join the WCML fasts from the wrong side of the line.

I can't see any government agreeing to pay for it at this time.

== == == == == ==
OTHER ENHANCEMENTS
So my vote is to build 2a to Hixon. To get the most benefit from this option, my next priority would be to make the following changes to the rest of the network, before building any more HS2:

Lengthen platform 5 at Crewe to accommodate 400m trains, and add a single short platform to the Chester Independent Lines. This would allow Chester - Manchester trains to use the goods tunnel to Manchester and avoid crossing the WCML at grade. These are shown in the HS2 plans for Crewe station:


Extend platforms at Warrington BQ, Preston and Carlisle, and if possible at Wigan NW, to 400m. The three 3 x HS2 services to "Preston and beyond" could then be full-length HS2 trains, as follows:

• 1tph 400m calling Preston-Carlisle-Waverly (platform 7+11). At under four hours, this would be the fastest service from Edinburgh to London, by any route. (We could call it The Flying Scotsman, though purists might prefer The Royal Scot.)
• 1tph 400m calling Crewe-Warrington BQ-Wigan NW-Preston.
• 1tph 2x200m, splitting at Preston. One part going fast to Edinburgh and the other part calling at major stations to Glasgow. This would complement the fast Pendolino to Glasgow.

I would then look at options to quadruple Crewe-Weaver to get more capacity cheaply north of Crewe

 

[AndrewE]

Interesting. I did prefer a smaller through station in London with a terminus (and depot for cleaning etc just beyond) at somewhere across London like Croydon (or somewhere else cheap and easy probably accessible from the Southern M25).

or go the whole hog and make it Brighton! Solves the BML problem, puts work into or near a coastal town... but this ise even more OT and speculative than your comment!

 

[JonathanH]

Solves the BML problem, puts work into or near a coastal town

Which BML problem does it solve?

 

[HSTEd]

So my vote is to build 2a to Hixon. To get the most benefit from this option, my next priority would be to make the following changes to the rest of the network, before building any more HS2:

After getting to Hixon my next priority would be getting the stub of the old eastern leg to connect to a railway somehow, so we can get trains into Curzon Street and the HS2 core from the direction of Derby.
Although there are no 320km/h electrodiesels available which does reduce its usefulness somewhat.

 

[The Ham]

Whilst Phase 1 could be a turning point, the other factor to consider is what do passenger numbers do.

Pre Covid, passenger numbers were at 170 for every 100 in 2009, if we can get back to that in the next 12-18 months that would be a good start.

Before I go further though, it's worth remembering that under the HS2 model that 2025 the passenger numbers were only expected to be at 148 for every 100 in 2009. 170 passengers were only expected (just) beyond 2030 (2030 was expected to be 168).

It's also worth noting that beyond 2026 growth was expected (at least in part) because of running HS2 services.

Therefore, if passenger numbers do reach a pre Covid level by 2026 there could be a fairly good case for more new lines. What that looks like is another matter, however more HS line would likely be fairly near the top of projects which would be useful.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

There was mention made concerning monies for both the NHS and the teachers this week in terms of above-inflation pay rises. Those were two areas which the Labour Party were stressing in the run-up to the last General Election.

 

[Nottingham59]

After getting to Hixon my next priority would be getting the stub of the old eastern leg to connect to a railway somehow, so we can get trains into Curzon Street and the HS2 core from the direction of Derby.

That would be good, assuming electrification. I reckon it would cut 15 minutes off the time from London to Derby and to Sheffield, and would get HS2 trains to Yorkshire. And the platforms at Derby and (I think) Sheffield could be extended to 400m, which would double capacity at little cost.

EDIT: And it would also release much-needed capacity on the MML

 

[SynthD]

Phase 2a could be built by anyone doesn’t have to be the present HS2 organisation

You need the same people to manage the build as HS2 plans to use, or be horribly inefficient as new people learn what the old people know because they wrote it.

After getting to Hixon my next priority would be getting the stub of the old eastern leg to connect to a railway somehow

It’s about two miles from the Cross Country line south of Tamworth.

I sometimes wonder about this. Do we really need 11 platforms?

No downsizing. We will regret that later.

 

[InTheEastMids]

After getting to Hixon my next priority would be getting the stub of the old eastern leg to connect to a railway somehow, so we can get trains into Curzon Street and the HS2 core from the direction of Derby.

That would be good, assuming electrification. I reckon it would cut 15 minutes off the time from London to Derby and to Sheffield, and would get HS2 trains to Yorkshire. And the platforms at Derby and (I think) Sheffield could be extended to 400m, which would double capacity at little cost.

EDIT: And it would also release much-needed capacity on the MML

There's really only two options aren't there?
You either build a bit of 2b as far as Kingsbury (a junction might be challenging because 2b alignment is very close to the M42 here)
Or you build a new junction near Street hay, near Lichfield.
Either way, maybe knocks 15-20min off Lon-Derby/Sheffield. At a simple level you'd then recast the EMR timetable and the Sheffield trains would become the stoppers and Nottingham trains would not call at Kettering/Harborough and you also get to deliver 'Nottingham in 90'.

Do we really need 11 platforms?

No downsizing. We will regret that later.

There must be interim options for areas at Euston that are not needed on Day 1 but might end up being needed for platforms by say 2050. Temporary prison/hotel/housing/asylum hostel? UK is desperately short of many types of infrastructure

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How many new hospitals, schools and prisons could be built with the costs at current prices of this project? Incidentally, in the run-up to the General Election were rail issues seen by any party to be one that could be given major focus?

 

[350401]

There's really only two options aren't there?
You either build a bit of 2b as far as Kingsbury (a junction might be challenging because 2b alignment is very close to the M42 here)
Or you build a new junction near Street hay, near Lichfield.
Either way, maybe knocks 15-20min off Lon-Derby/Sheffield. At a simple level you'd then recast the EMR timetable and the Sheffield trains would become the stoppers and Nottingham trains would not call at Kettering/Harborough and you also get to deliver 'Nottingham in 90'.




There must be interim options for areas at Euston that are not needed on Day 1 but might end up being needed for platforms by say 2050. Temporary prison/hotel/housing/asylum hostel? UK is desperately short of many types of infrastructure

Yes, you could build the whole station box, but only fit out the first 6 platforms. And then have the rest as retail or leased out - e.g. pub, offices etc. This would in in effect adapt the original plan, and built the station in two halves - but adapt it by only fitting out the first half.

Regarding connecting to the Crosscountry line, yes there was some work planned to look into the options for doing this before the election - I'm not sure where this has got up to. The plan was to build a connection to the conventional network near Delta Junction, so that the 7 platforms at Curzon Street were not a white elephant, and instead free up capacity at other Birmingham stations by diverting some trains into Curzon Street.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, you could build the whole station box, but only fit out the first 6 platforms. And then have the rest as retail or leased out - e.g. pub, offices etc. This would in in effect adapt the original plan, and built the station in two halves - but adapt it by only fitting out the first half.

Regarding connecting to the Crosscountry line, yes there was some work planned to look into the options for doing this before the election - I'm not sure where this has got up to. The plan was to build a connection to the conventional network near Delta Junction, so that the 7 platforms at Curzon Street were not a white elephant, and instead free up capacity at other Birmingham stations by diverting some trains into Curzon Street.

All very well, but its not just the connection that needs building. Ive said before, how much electrification are you going to do, how much new infrastructure to deal with the residual capacity and new trains and where are the HS2 trains going?

 

[AndrewE]

Which BML problem does it solve?

Inadequate capacity - takes the fast trains off the old BML.

 

[Meerkat]

How much has been spent on 2a - how far designed is it and how much land was bought?
And how much (ball park) would it cost to get it done from here?
Rename it (Shugborough bypass), reflag it as part of GBR, compare its cost to other options (not to do nothing).
See if you can split the cost out a bit. If you make a big chunk of the cost ‘environmental mitigation’ you might be able to change the argument to whether you pay for that bit or not, rather than about whether you do it at all.

 

[The Planner]

What capacity will Phase 2a add? This is my analysis. What do other think?

I assume they follow the line of 2a for some distance, then build a low-cost connection onto the main network at one of Hixon, Baldwin's Gate, or Basford Hall.

== == == == == == == == ==
CURRENT CAPACITY AT COLWICH
The mixed traffic WCML has to pass through the flat crossing at Colwich. I believe the current maximum capacity is around 10tph (7 passenger and 3 freight). Does anyone have a better figure?

Its not as simple as a flat number, it is where they fall at the junction. Each crossing move needs 5-6 minutes clear, so both Manchester's means the up is unavailable for 12 minutes in an hour. You will have 6 Avanti and a LNWR before long, plus a potential OAO, so you are up to 8 passenger. Add a third across Colwich and 30% of the up capacity is gone.

== == == ==
PHASE 1 ONLY
Build phase 1 only (Spur from HS2 Fradley Junction to the WCML slows at Handsacre). Mixed traffic still has to pass through the flat junction at Colwich, so the capacity will be the same as it is now, with similar destinations north of Handsacre. Comprising, perhaps:

• 5tph HS2 (all from London)
• 2tph WCML Passenger (one fast to Chester, one slow)
• 3tph WCML freight (as now)

Birmingham-Manchester traffic can still use the Cross-County route via Stoke on Trent, avoiding Colwich.
It may be possible to get three more passenger services through in peak hours, if freights are suspended at that time.

There will be more HS2 services than that, they aren't opening that without flooding it.

== == == == == ==
BUILD 2a TO HIXON
Build 2a to just short of Great Haywood, then curve northwards to join the Colwich-Stone line on a flat junction at Hixon. Cost: 18km of new track = £2.2bn. Radius of curve = 1500m (~100mph)

View attachment 162106

Only HS2 traffic will run on the Colwich-Stone line. Colwich Junction itself now has no crossing moves, as it funnels four tracks down to two, so it should cope with more traffic. I'll guess 2tph more. Is that resonable? This will give us:

From HS2

• 4tph HS2 via Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester (using the paths used by Avanti and Cross Country). Three from London, one from Curzon St. HS2 could deliver more trains to Stoke-on-Trent, but north of Stoke is limited by junctions in South Manchester. Wolverhampton and Stafford passengers to Macclesfield can be served by extending the Stoke stopper to Birmingham.
• 5tph HS2 towards Crewe via Colwich (1 Liverpool, 1 Manchester via Wilmslow (using the Avanti path), 3 to Preston and beyond)

From WCML Trent Valley

• 3tph WCML Passenger (One slow calling Stafford-Stoke-Crewe; one fast to Chester; one fast to Liverpool)
• 4tph WCML freight, if required

I would expect a second Trent Valley stopping service.

And from the Wolverhampton direction:

• 1tph stopper Birmingham to Liverpool
• 1tph stopper Birmingham - Stoke - Manchester
• 1tph limited stop Birmingham to Glasgow. With tilt, this would be the fastest service between Glasgow and Crewe.
• 4tph freights from Birmingham to Crewe yards, if required

Why only 1tph to Liverpool? that is a reduction. It will be 2tph.

== == == == == == == ==
BUILD 2a TO BALDWINS GATE
Build 2a to Baldwins Gate and merge onto the adjacent WCML fast lines to Crewe. Cost of 43.5km of new track = £5.2bn. Radius of curve = 2000m (~125mph),

View attachment 162107

Assuming a flat junction, the fasts from Baldwin's Gate to Crewe should have capacity of 8 - 10tph. And if they carried only HS2 traffic, then they could handle 12-16tph, which is far more than could pass through Crewe station.
Similarly the slows could take 8 - 10 tph. Paths through and beyond Crewe have become the constraint on the system, instead of Colwich.

It. will. not. be. a. flat. junction.

== == == == == ==
OTHER ENHANCEMENTS
So my vote is to build 2a to Hixon. To get the most benefit from this option, my next priority would be to make the following changes to the rest of the network, before building any more HS2:

Lengthen platform 5 at Crewe to accommodate 400m trains, and add a single short platform to the Chester Independent Lines. This would allow Chester - Manchester trains to use the goods tunnel to Manchester and avoid crossing the WCML at grade. These are shown in the HS2 plans for Crewe station:
View attachment 162109

Ignore anything that was planned for Crewe. No platforms will be built on the Independents and they are 10mph. There are no Chester Crewe Manchester trains, they go via Warrington.

 

[Gareth]

I think he has 1tph to Liverpool using the classic line. This is probably because of the existing service which, as you'll know, calls at Milton Keynes Central.

 

[MPW]

Do manchester and Birmingham still have a pot of money as promised by tories when axing hs2? If central government pays for the expensive bit (tunnels and new stations in manchester) then the devolved governments' business case for the connection becomes much better. Especially if they can stick a couple new towns en route.

 

[HSTEd]

There will be more HS2 services than that, they aren't opening that without flooding it.

I would expect a second Trent Valley stopping service.

Depending on what form the Handsacre connection takes, I would not be entirely surprised if Rugeley Trent Valley gets a HS2 service.

Indeed, even if you had it just be an extension of the Curzon Street service it would still crush the London Midland journey time.
The collapse of the later phases does present interesting opportunities for innovative ways of using these newly available paths.

 

[Energy]

I think he has 1tph to Liverpool using the classic line. This is probably because of the existing service which, as you'll know, calls at Milton Keynes Central.

Liverpool - Milton Keynes would be an easy change at Crewe, which would have 2tph Avanti & 2tph LNWR to Liverpool, and plenty of trains to Milton Keynes.

 

[Gareth]

Sure, but Milton Keynes is useful as an interchange point. It puts the whole southern WCML, at most, one change away.*

If Phase 2a were to go ahead, then the time benefits for Liverpool-London would probably outweigh the connectivity at Milton Keynes but if only Phase 1 happens, the classic line won't be that much slower, so it might be more in the balance.

Having said that, unless Chester is wired, it's likely the Chester takes the MK call back, as it will have no choice but to stay on the classic line anyway.

*and yes, just remembered, you could, of course, get one change by going through Birmingham but that's not the best.

 

[Energy]

Sure, but Milton Keynes is useful as an interchange point. It puts the whole southern WCML, at most, one change away.*

If Phase 2a were to go ahead, then the time benefits for Liverpool-London would probably outweigh the connectivity at Milton Keynes but if only Phase 1 happens, the classic line won't be that much slower, so it might be more in the balance.

Having said that, unless Chester is wired, it's likely the Chester takes the MK call back, as it will have no choice but to stay on the classic line anyway.

*and yes, just remembered, you could, of course, get one change by going through Birmingham but that's not the best.

That's fair, though for some of them changing at Euston might still be quicker with HS2 1+2a.

 

[Gareth]

Yes, that's a good point.

 

[Manutd1999]

Everyone seems to agree that *something* has to be done to increase capacity north of Handscare but I am unconvinced that Phase 2a in it's original form is required. The Atkins alternatives should be re-visited IMO.

The Alternatives Report linked below (p45 onwards) discusses the alternative options. Some quotes below:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a803694ed915d74e33f91e7/C5_web_tagged_final_07-09-16.pdf

the alternative options have broadly similar BCR to Phase 2a

When assessed as a standalone incremental scheme, the difference in benefits and revenues between the alternative options and Phase 2a is much lower. The result is that all the options have a higher BCR than Phase 2a, although only the high cost option has a higher NPV

All of the alternative options provide sufficient capacity to allow the full operation of the indicative train service specification proposed for the Full Y scenarios. Beyond this indicative train service specification, all of the options provide some spare capacity to run additional HS2, residual or freight services, although this varies between options

None of the options provide the same overall capacity as Phase 2a, which together with the WCML effectively provides a six track railway between the end of HS2 Phase One and Crewe. This inevitably provides more capacity than the alternative options, which to different degrees all have sections with four tracks. As well as allowing more easily for future growth, this much greater amount of potential additional capacity available with Phase 2a, is also likely to provide performance and resilience benefits compared to the alternative options.

The justification is not particularly convincing IMO. The key benefit seems to be the additional capacity which Phase 2a delivers, even though it is acknowledged that the alternatives provide enough capacity for the full planned service.....

A cheaper scheme could be a lot easier for government to justify. You could even scrap Handscare Junction completely to save additional money.

 

[The Planner]

Depending on what form the Handsacre connection takes, I would not be entirely surprised if Rugeley Trent Valley gets a HS2 service.

Indeed, even if you had it just be an extension of the Curzon Street service it would still crush the London Midland journey time.
The collapse of the later phases does present interesting opportunities for innovative ways of using these newly available paths.

I will be absolutely amazed if it ends up as anything else but the slow line connection.

A cheaper scheme could be a lot easier for government to justify. You could even scrap Handscare Junction completely to save additional money.

They are rapidly running out of time to either say 2A is happening as designed, or to decide on an alternative to get rid of Handsacre.

 

[The Ham]

How many new hospitals, schools and prisons could be built with the costs at current prices of this project? Incidentally, in the run-up to the General Election were rail issues seen by any party to be one that could be given major focus?

The BBC have a useful guide as to how much a hospital costs:

Is a hospital a useful unit of spending?

Politicians seem to have settled on a new unit of measuring public spending - the hospital. So how much does one actually cost?

www.bbc.co.uk

The concussion:

It's very difficult to give a definitive cost for building a hospital, says Prof John Appleby, a health economist at Nuffield Trust, because it fluctuates so wildly.
"The reason it varies massively is that hospitals come in all shapes and sizes. Some of these capital costs will be for bits of hospitals, some will be for relocating hospitals on green-field sites like the Norfolk and Norwich hospital.
"Others are new builds on old sites so they vary in their function and they vary in their size."
At the lower end of the scale, there's a hospital project in Cornwall that cost just £7m - that was a mental health unit - but by contrast the reconstruction of Bart's hospital in London cost £1.1bn - over 150 times more expensive.
And of course, lots of NHS care isn't delivered in hospitals - it is in GP surgeries and out in the community.
"It's actually completely the wrong measurement because it somehow implies we should be having lots more hospitals when maybe that's not the way medicine is going over time," says Appleby.

The same is true if schools and hospitals.

Only there's little point in building extra schools as where they are needed due to development the developer funds them and most other places are finding that the number of children is raking so over the next 20 years there'll be a need for fewer and fewer school places.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The BBC have a useful guide as to how much a hospital costs:

Is a hospital a useful unit of spending?

Politicians seem to have settled on a new unit of measuring public spending - the hospital. So how much does one actually cost?

www.bbc.co.uk

The same is true if schools and hospitals.

Only there's little point in building extra schools as where they are needed due to development the developer funds them and most other places are finding that the number of children is raking so over the next 20 years there'll be a need for fewer and fewer school places.

That reply does not answer the third of the raised queries, that of prisons. I specifically made mention of prisons, as one of the Labour Party statements in the first few days of being in office was the matter of early prisoner release to reduce the pressure caused by the size of the prison population.