HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) minister issues correction over departmental budget


Robert Goodwill joined the government in October

The minister overseeing the HS2 rail project has issued an official correction after getting muddled over the size of his department's budget.

Robert Goodwill suggested in the Commons last week that the transport department's overall budget was ^50bn. The actual figure is less than ^13bn.

He told MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) the ^42bn cost of HS2 equated to just 10 months of his department's overall expenditure. In fact, it would equate to its whole budget for more than three years.

Mr Goodwill, who became a minister in October's reshuffle, made the mistake in response to a question from Tory MP Cheryl Gillan, a critic of the planned high-speed rail link between London, the Midlands and the north of England.

She asked him how he responded to doubts expressed by the National Audit Office (NAO) about the government's ability to deliver the project on time and on budget.

"He is now claiming to have one of the largest infrastructure budgets of any government department, but the NAO does not think the department is fit to run it," she said.

In response, Mr Goodwill said his department had "a lot of experience in managing big projects" before suggesting its annual budget was "about ^50bn".

Comparing the figure with the cost of HS2, he said: "If rolling stock were excluded and nothing else was done with the department's budget, this project would be the equivalent of about 10 months of the department's total budget. That puts it into context."

But the Department for Transport has issued a correction in a written statement to Parliament, clarifying that the minister had actually been thinking of a completely different budget.

It said "the figure quoted was actually a figure for the government's annual capital investment budget".

A spokesman told the BBC: "As set out in the Spending Round the department's total annual budget is ^12.8bn for 2015/16. The government's annual capital investment budget for infrastructure is ^50.4bn for 2014/15."

But Labour's transport spokeswoman Mary Creagh said it was "alarming that a transport minister is so out of touch he doesn't even know his own department's budget".

"It's easy to see how David Cameron's government gets big projects wrong when ministers' maths is this dodgy."

And these folks are allegedly running the country 

[Rhydgaled]

And these folks are allegedly running the country 

Unfortunately it isn't alleged, they are running the country (or rather certain transport-related elements of it). Why else would most of the over-400-seat Intercity trains on the crowded Great Western network be slated for replacment by 315-seat Intercity trains by the same bunch that apparently are asking seating in the current trains to be further increased by replacing some first class with standard? Ok, some of the replacment trains currently planned will have 627 seats, but they are a very small fraction of the fleet.

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), like IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), is a much-needed project which has been badly specified by DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) to the extent that both are terminally flawed.

[JayMac]

Unfortunately it isn't alleged, they are running the country (or rather certain transport-related elements of it). Why else would most of the over-400-seat Intercity trains on the crowded Great Western network be slated for replacment by 315-seat Intercity trains by the same bunch that apparently are asking seating in the current trains to be further increased by replacing some first class with standard? Ok, some of the replacment trains currently planned will have 627 seats, but they are a very small fraction of the fleet.

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), like IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), is a much-needed project which has been badly specified by DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) to the extent that both are terminally flawed.

21x 9 car versus 36x 5 car is hardly a 'small fraction'. 

As for seating, it isn't a straight comparison with current HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams when you factor in increased frequency on the majority of the routes which will see the Class 800s and 801s. Overall, after full delivery, and including Thames Valley cascaded/new stock, there will be a 40% increase in seats into Paddington versus the May 2011 timetable. Faster journey times too.

[eightf48544]

Maybe more seats but who wants to travel in 737 seat? With possibly no window

[Rhydgaled]

Unfortunately it isn't alleged, they are running the country (or rather certain transport-related elements of it). Why else would most of the over-400-seat Intercity trains on the crowded Great Western network be slated for replacment by 315-seat Intercity trains by the same bunch that apparently are asking seating in the current trains to be further increased by replacing some first class with standard? Ok, some of the replacment trains currently planned will have 627 seats, but they are a very small fraction of the fleet.

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), like IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), is a much-needed project which has been badly specified by DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) to the extent that both are terminally flawed.

21x 9 car versus 36x 5 car is hardly a 'small fraction'. 

18 and 32 diagrammed. That's 14 more 5-cars than there are 9-cars, quite a big difference compared to only 5x 5-car sets (180s) today I believe.

As for seating, it isn't a straight comparison with current HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams when you factor in increased frequency on the majority of the routes which will see the Class 800s and 801s. Overall, after full delivery, and including Thames Valley cascaded/new stock, there will be a 40% increase in seats into Paddington versus the May 2011 timetable. Faster journey times too.

Pretty much only Bristol (Parkway and T.M.) and the Cheltenham service that's supposed to double in frequency though isn't it? Perhaps a new hourly semi-fast to Westbury too (not sure if that's still on the cards). Add the sparks effect and Princess effect and I imagine most of the extra seats will be filled quite quickly. Lastly, a 40% increase in seats into PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) doesn't matter one jot to the passenger trying to get on a 5-car train in Swansea or Reading which used to be 8 carriages.

Anyway, back to that other terminally flawed but very necessary project, HS2...

[TonyK]

Amen, Rhydgaled! These are interesting times for HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), with frenzied activity in parliament and elsewhere to keep it alive. The first vote sailed through, but it seems that Conservative rebels are keeping their powder dry for now, and let the vote through to ensure the best deal for landowners along the route if the project goes ahead. David Cameron has deployed the classic politicians's fudge of launching a review to look for savings. This is despite HS2 Ltd insisting that they will build the railway for well under the ^42.6 billion budget.

I hate to politicise this thread, and hope this is seen as comment only. UKIP is against HS2, and if they pick up disaffected voters along the route, DC^▸ (Direct Current) and his party are headed for problems, along with a number of other pet coalition projects, like wind farms. So he is positioning himself in the role of cost-cutter and champion of business, whilst finding time and the chance to paint the labour party into a corner. This was, after all, a labour baby at conception, even if it has been consigned to the orphanage rather than being adopted. The most likely outcome for the Lib Dems at the next election as things stand is that they "Go back to their constituencies, and prepare for oblivion". Labour will have the chance to take advantage of a split Tory / UKIP vote, plus a seemingly substantial number of LibDem defectors. It would make sense to decide its attitude to its own brainchild now, and to cement that policy whilst the heat is on, to reduce the chance of HS2 being a national political hot potato come the next general election, and more an issue for voters in country seats it would never win anyway.

If the project is done to the timetable, phase one alone will see three elections at least before the first train runs. This project really needs the same sort of cross-party consensus enjoyed by the Millennium Dome and the Olympics, and seemed until recently to have it. My feeling is that order will soon come from the chaos in the debating chamber, through detailed discussions behind closed doors in committee rooms. The effort will be made to reduce the temperature of the argument on the Hustings. How successful that will be remains to be seen.

I recommend no one party to anyone, and know that the very intelligent members of this forum will weigh all the evidence and make their decision unswayed by my musings above, come the day.

As I prophesied earlier, business nationally has now seen an opportunity. Whilst we were planning fireworks yesterday, HS2 Ltd was hosting a "Supply Chain Conference" for businesses interested in snapping up a piece of the action, in Birmingham (where else?). According to the press release there are contracts worth ^10 billion up for grabs. 800 delegates from 600 businesses attended. There will be more of these events, which will not only build networks of potential bidders, but will, I think, steer business opinion more clearly towards support.

[ellendune]

I largely agree with your analysis FTW. However I find it difficult to believe that in the safe Tory Seats of middle England there would be enough Tory voters switching to UKIP to make the Torys loose. After all it is relatively few people who even think they are affected.  If there a few more marginal seats perhaps it would make a difference, but almost all are very safe seats.

[TonyK]

Time will tell, ellendunne. I base my thoughts on reports in the press informed by polling/ We all know how a party can gain eminence locally on a single issue, and it seems this is keeping Tory high command awake at night.

[IndustryInsider]

Unfortunately it isn't alleged, they are running the country (or rather certain transport-related elements of it). Why else would most of the over-400-seat Intercity trains on the crowded Great Western network be slated for replacment by 315-seat Intercity trains by the same bunch that apparently are asking seating in the current trains to be further increased by replacing some first class with standard? Ok, some of the replacment trains currently planned will have 627 seats, but they are a very small fraction of the fleet.

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), like IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), is a much-needed project which has been badly specified by DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) to the extent that both are terminally flawed.

21x 9 car versus 36x 5 car is hardly a 'small fraction'. 

18 and 32 diagrammed. That's 14 more 5-cars than there are 9-cars, quite a big difference compared to only 5x 5-car sets (180s) today I believe.

Though to truly compare you need to work out what fraction of the total trains will be running as 5-car sets as some with be doubled up to 10-car sets of course.  Nobody knows the answer to that yet.  Some trains will be ideally suited to 5-car operation as well and may reduce the number of totally empty carriages that run on some late night services that are currently full length HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s, but I also share your concerns that others may indeed be swamped - some very careful diagramming will be required.

Whatever the final figures it won't be a 'very small fraction' of trains that are longer than 5-cars as you suggest.

[stebbo]

Thoughts on two different topics involved here:

1. Although I personally find the whole bi-mode train ridiculous (for reasons I've stated in other threads before), the principle of working 5 car sets in tandem at peak hours and on busier lines could work. To take the Cotswold Line as an example, running a 5 car set between Hereford and Worcester and 10 cars between Worcester and Paddington (or 5 cars Hereford to Oxford at certain times) could work well - shades of the old Cathedrals Express.

2. More seriously, in my own personal view, is the detailed article in today's Sunday Telegraph on HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) and its costs/environmental impact and also the extra powers the government appears to be taking in the legislation to close less economic routes. The latter issue is reckoned to have a potential impact particularly on routes affected by HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) where steps are apparently being taken to force passengers off certain routes onto HS1 thereby rendering the older (and presumably cheaper) routes less viable. Also, it appears public support for the whole HS2 proposal is going through the floor - though I'd like to be certain the opinion poll referred to did canvass a good number of people outside of areas affected by HS2.

Now I know the Telegraph may not have the full story and is not everybody's cup of tea, but isn't this whole HS2 project getting way out of hand and over budget for potentially limited gain? And couldn't a chunk of the current budget - let alone the actual budget - be used to improve existing services both between London and the north and elsewhere? I read a short while back that the two busiest stations in London are Paddington and Waterloo, not Euston, Kings Cross or St. Pancras. And of course how long before increases in cost in HS2 cause existing railway budgets to be raided?

I've always had my doubts about this project and, like it seems many others, they are increasing all the time. What's the view of others?

[Rhydgaled]

Some trains will be ideally suited to 5-car operation as well and may reduce the number of totally empty carriages that run on some late night services that are currently full length HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s, but I also share your concerns that others may indeed be swamped - some very careful diagramming will be required.

Whatever the final figures it won't be a 'very small fraction' of trains that are longer than 5-cars as you suggest.

You're right, 'very small fraction' was an incorrect use of language. I should have said 'the majority' of the new fleet will be 5-car, as opposed to the current fleet being majority 2+8 IC125s with 5-car 180s being a very small minority.

the government appears to be taking in the legislation to close less economic routes.

What?? Is a repeat of Beeching being threatened?

the two busiest stations in London are Paddington and Waterloo, not Euston, Kings Cross or St. Pancras.

This is why I think HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) in it's current form is a mistake. I don't doubt the argument that a duplicate line for the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) would provide much-needed extra capacity but if that's enough of an argument to build the line (and personally I think it is, if done right and you can find the money without painful cuts elsewhere, which I doubt) then there should also be new lines to release capacity on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line). You can't build all 3 new lines all at once due to workforce size and funding constraints, but if you can make passive provision for HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services))-ECML and HS-GWML while building HS-WCML (rather than, as currently planned, building HS-WCML as a stand-alone project with little or no thought to integrating it into a larger network) then, in my opinion, you should.

[ellendune]

If you are referring to Andrew Gilligan's opionon piece in the Sunday Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10486330/HS2-is-a-blueprint-to-ruin-land-and-lives.html there is nothing really new in it. It is just a propaganda peice for the anti HS2 lobby. 

The closure powers he refers to are if is is expedient for HS2 (no mention of HS2). This refers to things like the low level line between Trent Junction which is being closed to make way for HS2 - this is already known. The trains will still be able to use the adjacent high level lines. 

The costs of tunnelling are of course expensive as he says, but that is only because they are trying to appease the people in the Chilterns who have so much say in Parliament (for some reason).  The new head of HS2 has a brief to reduce costs and we will have to see how he does it. He compares it to the annual subsidy on rail, but in truth it will be over a number of years. Yet somehow spending the same amount of money on public transport in London is seen as essential to the continued life of the city.

You mention Waterloo and Paddington eing the top stations by usage.  You are not entirely correct. The figures for 11/12 on the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) website give the top few stations as:

Waterloo    94,045,510
Victoria    76,231,290
Liverpool Street    57,106,502
London Bridge    52,634,024
Charing Cross    38,004,790
Euston    36,608,546
Paddington    33,736,546
Birmingham New Street    31,213,842
King's Cross    27,874,732
Glasgow Central    26,639,418
Leeds    25,020,032
St.Pancras    22,996,472

However it is not just about total usage, but about where there is lack of capacity.  If you think the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) needs additional capacity you are probably right, but the biggest constraint is Reading - which is being dealt with and the next strategic pinch points are Reading to Paddington and perhaps Didcot to Swindon. The former is not an easy fix. The latter is relatively easy fixed with 4 tracks (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) started this). The question is whether the combined WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) capacity constraints - which HS2 is designed to deal with are more urgent or important to the nation. They do serve a far large population. 

We do think that we in the west should get investment - of course we are we are special people.  However, I could not argue that it should ahve higher priority than these other routes.

[Rhydgaled]

If you think the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) needs additional capacity you are probably right, but the biggest constraint is Reading - which is being dealt with and the next strategic pinch points are Reading to Paddington and perhaps Didcot to Swindon. The former is not an easy fix. The latter is relatively easy fixed with 4 tracks (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) started this). The question is whether the combined WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) capacity constraints - which HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is designed to deal with are more urgent or important to the nation. They do serve a far large population. 

We do think that we in the west should get investment - of course we are we are special people.  However, I could not argue that it should ahve higher priority than these other routes.

Personally, I can't see much point in the Leeds spur of HS2, it looks to me like a white elephant that will not really help the ECML and MML. Leeds - London traffic would probably be better served by an East Coast HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services))-line and the fact it is not possible to serve Nottingham and Derby with London trains effectively with a single route means HS2 wouldn't help the MML much either.

I agree that the highest priority for a new line on capacity grounds is London - Birmingham - Manchester, but this should be built with passive provision for it to become part of a larger network. For example, the Reading - London section of the GWML could be relieved in future if the Old Oak Common - Central London section of HS2 allows more trains. A new through station in central London, with the same number of platforms as Euston is planned to have for HS2 trains, would probably have capacity for double the frequency compared to the proposed Euston terminus. That would be passive provision for more trains, which would materialise if you then built the first section of a HS-GWML, running from Old Oak Common to Heathrow and (passing south of Reading) onto join the existing Reading - Westbury line. There could be a spur to the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) line into Reading to allow services from Heathrow/London to run into Reading. Even just the Heathrow - Old Oak section (instead of the proposed Heathrow spur of HS2) could allow Heathrow Express (assuming only Heathrow Connect is being diverted onto Crossrail) to be taken off the GWML and, perhaps, run as an extension of the SouthEastern HighSpeed service.

[eightf48544]

On due consideration I am now agianst HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

This is 4 main reasons.

it's London terminal is Euston. it should be athrough station linking HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) 2 and HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) or at least teh Great Eastern

Birmingham is a terminal station a long way from New Street. It should be through station with links to Wolverhampton.

Manchester is a terminal station it should be at through station with links to the North West network, although possibly in its favour it's right by Piccadilly

Leeds is a terminal station a long way from Central, again it should be a through station with links to the West Yorkshire network.

If you look at the LGVs^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) in France Germany and Spain they all serve the principle stations on the existing network with through trains and often terminate at places not served by the LGV.

I'm not against building a high speed line in principle I just don't see the point spending millions on a line that serves 3 cities with terminal stations.

I am still undecided on the point of the proposed stations at East Midalnds and Medowhall.

[stebbo]

I wasn't just referring to the Andrew Gilligan piece. There's a whole load of stuff at the front of the Sunday Telegraph - and I am aware (as I think I said) that it might be biased and I would like to know how widely the poll was taken. It clearly has less weight if confined to the residents of the Chilterns and east Oxfordshire.

And no, I don't want to see all the extra investment in the West. I have consistently thought and said that the cross-country routes could use electrification. For example, why is electrification out of Birmingham being extended to Bromsgrove but no further? Surely it makes sense to wire Bristol to Birmingham and then Birmingham to the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line).