HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

Out of interest, am I the only one seeing parallels with Br*x*t?

[Mark A]

Link to 'HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) Phase 2a: High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Bill'

The act's over 200 pages so not to be read, but a search for 'Cancel' or 'Disposal' is instructive - and the very first two pages perhaps suggest that property acquired can be disposed of without further legislation. This act will be an unpopular read for more than a few lawyers in the coming days.

Also: 'High Speed Two Phase 2A Information Paper
C6: Disposal Of Surplus Land'

Mark

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/2/enacted/data.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6025248cd3bf7f031b1233ae/C6_Disposal_of_Surplus_Land_v1.1.pdf

[TaplowGreen]

Out of interest, am I the only one seeing parallels with Br*x*t?

It's about as close to comparing apples with pears as it's possible to get, but just for fun, had there been a binding, yes/no national referendum on persisting with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) this week instead of just a Government announcement, what do you think would have been the outcome?

[Mark A]

Yougov has polling stats vs time on this, broken down in various ways.

Mark

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-high-speed-rail-hs2

[IndustryInsider]

Yougov has polling stats vs time on this, broken down in various ways.

The 18-24 year old results are interesting.

[Mark A]

One can add it up in one's head, but the site could do with a control to sum the support / oppose categories, yes?

Mark

[ellendune]

The current edition of Rail Magazine includes a picture of the M-shaped precast sections for the so called green tunnels on HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).  Looking at the picture I think HS2 have missed  trick that could have saved the project in not getting a sponsorship deal from a well-known burger chain!

[Red Squirrel]

Out of interest, am I the only one seeing parallels with Br*x*t?

It's about as close to comparing apples with pears as it's possible to get, but just for fun, had there been a binding, yes/no national referendum on persisting with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) this week instead of just a Government announcement, what do you think would have been the outcome?

I'd have to agree that it's like comparing apples with pears - both members of the rosaceae family, both pome fruits... I'd also agree that if there had been a binding referendum (unlike the advisory one in 2016) people would have probably voted against HS2, and for similar reasons for voting against EU^» (European Union - about) membership..

I suspect that in this case it will take less time for people to realise how much harm has been done though.

[IndustryInsider]

A viewpoint from Politico, a global nonpartisan politics and policy news organization, launched in Europe in April 2015.

https://www.politico.eu/article/united-kingdom-train-hs2-costs-rishi-sunak-david-cameron-keir-starmer/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb

[TaplowGreen]

Out of interest, am I the only one seeing parallels with Br*x*t?

It's about as close to comparing apples with pears as it's possible to get, but just for fun, had there been a binding, yes/no national referendum on persisting with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) this week instead of just a Government announcement, what do you think would have been the outcome?

I'd have to agree that it's like comparing apples with pears - both members of the rosaceae family, both pome fruits... I'd also agree that if there had been a binding referendum (unlike the advisory one in 2016) people would have probably voted against HS2, and for similar reasons for voting against EU^» (European Union - about) membership..

I suspect that in this case it will take less time for people to realise how much harm has been done though.

The most common reasons given for voting against EU membership were national sovereignty and immigration - I'm not sure people would consider those similar reasons for opposing HS2?

Perhaps I should have said comparing a fish to a bicycle.

[Mark A]

The whole sorry story is presumably guaranteed to hit parliament, but phase 2a especially. Costed at about the same as the whole of East West Rail between Oxford and Cambridge, it's ready to go. 2a unlocks a series of pinch points on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) including that pesky two track section that's not easy to sort by widening .

The decision to axe phase 2a is especially unhinged and seems driven simply by Rishi's crazy need to ensure that whatever of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) survives is crippled from the off. (He's attempting to pretend that London to Birmingham is viable as it is... er...)

Mark

[ellendune]

A summary of where we are up to as I see it. 

Why did the costs rise? – The reason for the cancellation is said to be the spiralling costs.  Why have those costs increased so much? 

Supply chain capacity and skill shortages  due to the lack of a pipeline of work – In almost all other countries there is a long term plan agreed for railway improvements and high speed lines.  This allows the supply chain to develop skills and capacity to deliver schemes.  In the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) it is all stop start. The last major electrification scheme before the Great western was the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) which was completed in 1991. Twenty years later, when the Great Western Electrification scheme was announced (after a 2 year delay due to the change of government) it is not really surprising that the electrification teams had long since been disbanded and had to be rebuilt from scratch.  The same was true of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), the gap following completion of HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) in 2007 there was a gap of 2 years before planning of HS2 was announced and a further gap before construction started.  The teams were therefore disbanded and much of the expertise lost.  This stop start investment in infrastructure significantly increases infrastructure costs in the UK compared with other countries which have developed long term programmes offering continuity of work. 

Total Transfer of Risk -  The decision to transfer risk to the supply chain on a scale never seen before could only be taken by a government without any understanding of how the construction industry (indeed the private sector as a whole) manages risk. When pricing tenders, construction companies will investigate the risks very carefully and price these into their tenders.  The more risk they are taking on the higher the prices they will charge.  Experienced investors will understand that high returns only come from investments with high risk. Companies will also have risk limits as taking on too much might be existential to the company. Remember Carillion? – other construction companies do and don’t want to end up with the same fate.  The nearer they come to that risk limit the higher the premium they will charge. 

So what were these risk transfers.  They were initially two-fold.

1)   The decision to place all construction cost risks from unforeseen circumstances to the contractor up to a very high level (reported to be 60% - i.e. until the costs had increased by more than60% there would be no extra money for the contractor).
2)   The decision to require minimal maintenance down-time on the completed railway.  Settlement of ballast and embankments particularly in the early life of a road or railway is normal. On a railway this is easily managed by normal maintenance activities.  Removing this opportunity dramatically increased capital costs as every embankment became effectively a buried viaduct and normal ballasted track became slab track. (Incidentally slab track is only low maintenance for a while after 30 years or so it will need replacing at vast additional cost and disruption just as concrete roads built in the 1970’s and 80’s do now (if you don’t know about this ask your colleagues from South and mid Norfolk about the chaos on the A11 for many months last year and  earlier this year). 

Later a further risk was also priced in – the risk of change of scope during construction. 

Meddling and indecision in the scope – It is a well-established fact (ask any experienced project manager) that any change of scope during the course of a project will increase costs.  The government has intervened time and time again at various stages in the planning of the works.  This included the scrapping of the link from Manchester to the north, the link to Leeds the design of the route into Manchester and the change of design of the new station at Euston.  To take the last example – Euston.  The change of design was intended to save money, but involved writing off £100million of design costs and further costs from the delay involved.  Now it turns out the new design will not save money!  Delaying the construction of the line to Euston still requires the tunnelling machines, costing many £millions to be put in place at Old Oak Common before that work can complete.  These will then have to be maintained underground until construction starts at significant cost with a high chance that in the event of a long delay that they will have to be written off and further major expenditure to sink a new shaft to replace them. 

Inflation – has caused the costs to increase of all construction projects but it has similarly inflated the value of the benefits. So the cost benefit ratio remains broadly the same. 

Cost comparisons with overseas schemes – The costs are said to be much more per km than similar schemes in other countries. However apart from the factors I have mentioned above, the costs quoted are for the construction of a line from outskirts of one city to the outskirts of the next. Major new stations and improvements to the approaches are funded as separate schemes.  Similarly in other countries the costs of the new trains would have been considered separately.

Reduction in rail use following pandemic – Various statements have been made about reduced rail use since the pandemic. According to ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road, formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) rail travel in last year was only 12% below pre-pandemic levels.  Furthermore the number of journeys is still higher than when the need for HS2 was first identified. 

What is left – A line from Euston to Birmingham and the West Coast Main Line (WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line)) near Lichfield would have little benefit as the additional huge capacity on HS2 could  never be used to serve the North because there are still major capacity constraints on the WCML north of Lichfield. Reducing the scope of Euston to six platforms  would further reduce capacity and prevent the Birmingham section ever being used for its intended purpose. An additional capacity constraint is the length of the trains. The Station platforms on the current tracks are only about half the length of the platforms on the HS2 and it is not possible to extend them. As a result the trains would only have 550 seats rather than the 607 seats on the current services. Furthermore since the trains currently on order for HS2 do not tilt so they will not be able to do the same speed on curves as the current tilting trains on the WCML. 

Replacement schemes – This list was clearly drawn up by people with no knowledge of transport investment.  It has been reported that there was no consultation with Network Rail or other infrastructure providers – and I doubt whether they even consulted the Department for Transport.  That is obviously why it included “The new Combined Authority could use the funding to extend the Nottingham Tram system to serve Gedling and Clifton South” – though this  had been opened eight years ago and the  Manchester Metrolink extension to Manchester Airport which had been opened at about the same time. It is also obvious from the mysterious disappearance of many schemes from this list over the ensuing hours and days as people who actually knew something about the cost or deliverability of some of these projects realised what had been proposed (the internet always has an archived copy of early versions though). 

It is probably why the “Network North” plan (which curiously includes many schemes in the South) has been branded as incoherent by transport experts.  It was clearly dreamt up by some inexperience political adviser in a hurry.  It also includes sums for mending pot holes – this is not capital investment it is revenue.  Spending capital on revenue items is extremely bad practice. 

One thing missing from “Network North” even before it was pruned are any schemes that will improve the capacity of the WCML north of Lichfield or on the highly congested line north out of Birmingham New Steet towards Manchester.  Nor is there any replacement for the much needed capacity that the Eastern leg would have provided to relieve the capacity problems on the Midland Main Line and the East Coast Main line.

Investors in Britain are not going to be impressed by this so called transport plan. 

Wrecking ball – Selling off the land, removing the safeguarding of the route  and Reducing the scope of Euston scope of Euston effectively prevents any future government from completing HS2 without incurring massive additional costs (above the cost of completing HS2 to Manchester as currently scoped). These

Waste of public money – Quite apart from the issues I raised above that caused the costs to get out of control. The cancellation costs of contracts is a huge waste of public money (it is reported that one such contract was only signed in the past few days) as it would be paying contractors to do nothing.  The fact that you propose to cover this cost by sale of land does not alter that fact as this land is a public asset.  In addition what is left is a rump whose benefit cost ratio is less than one (i.e. the costs exceed the benefits).

[ellendune]

Apparently the list of schemes to replace HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) are only examples.  So no commitment at all.

[TaplowGreen]

There's now a petition to parliament: don't axe Birmingham-Manchester line of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/644999

Mark

361 signatures (so far) in a week.

Just another 99,639 needed before it's considered for debate.

[CyclingSid]

Chocolate tea pot anyone?