HS2 under review

[Oakydoke]

Better still, move the Euston Square platforms eastwards.

Euston Square LUL stationis located right in front of the new bit of Euston Station.

I think the plan includes a new underground ticket hall between the Euston Sq. platforms and the current Euston underground station, bringing all the underground lines into a single complex.

[Edwin_m]

Also brings Euston Square up to modern safety standards (exit each end of the platforms) and adds step-free access. 

[locoholic]

https://www.ft.com/content/a32dda78-8c01-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543

 

It really is time HS2 was cancelled.

[Kelly]

https://www.ft.com/content/a32dda78-8c01-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543

 

It really is time HS2 was cancelled.

 

 

Can you link to something not behind a paywall? HS2 is a great expense, but something the country as a whole needs.  The route and other aspects of it being another matter entirely, and rather moot now it has started, too much already spent to give up on it really.

 

There is a new plan being submitted as well to link HS1 to Heathrow, GWR Mainline and HS2 which was announced yesterday.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Can you link to something not behind a paywall? HS2 is a great expense, but something the country as a whole needs.  The route and other aspects of it being another matter entirely, and rather moot now it has started, too much already spent to give up on it really.

 

There is a new plan being submitted as well to link HS1 to Heathrow, GWR Mainline and HS2 which was announced yesterday.

 

It used to be the case that major investments like these did not really cost all that much at all. The money spent was going to UK companies paying UK-based employees and suppliers. So the money all went round several times with the Govt collecting lots of taxes and so little real net cost.

 

These days, it's more difficult. A lot of the contracts go to foreign companies using other foreign contractors. Much less of the money gets recycled within our economy.

 

But, yes, we still need HS2.

[jamie92208]

It used to be the case that major investments like these did not really cost all that much at all. The money spent was going to UK companies paying UK-based employees and suppliers. So the money all went round several times with the Govt collecting lots of taxes and so little real net cost.

 

These days, it's more difficult. A lot of the contracts go to foreign companies using other foreign contractors. Much less of the money gets recycled within our economy.

 

But, yes, we still need HS2.

However I suspect that most of the construction labour force will be UK based or even of not will spend a lot in the UK economy so there should be a substantial offset, not to mention VAT receipts on all the UK purchases.

 

Jamie

[caradoc]

https://www.ft.com/content/a32dda78-8c01-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543

 

It really is time HS2 was cancelled.

 

If HS2 is cancelled how will additional capacity and reduced journey times between London and the Midlands/North/Scotland be provided ?

[Ron Ron Ron]

https://www.ft.com/content/a32dda78-8c01-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543

 

It really is time HS2 was cancelled.

 

 

Can you link to something not behind a paywall? ......

 

  Leaked HS2 report claims scheme ‘fundamentally flawed’

 

Rail project in ‘precarious position’ and may exceed £56bn budget by as much as 60%

 

 

Successful delivery appears unachievable, says report’s author

Project hit by series of controversies

Scores of people yet to receive compensation

 

Racing through the countryside at 250mph, the planned new high-speed train line from London to the Midlands and northern England should be one of the fastest in the world.

But it is also set to be one of the most expensive.

 

A leaked document prepared for the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority warned shortly before the High Speed 2 railway was approved by parliament in February 2017 that the scheme was “fundamentally flawed” and would overshoot its £56bn budget by as much as 60 per cent.

 

The December 2016 document, marked “sensitive” and “not for publication”, said Europe’s biggest infrastructure project was in a “precarious position” and would be “classified as ‘failed’ by any internationally recognised definition”.

It added that HS2 was “highly likely to significantly overspend, 20 to 60 per cent”, which would increase the cost to as much as £90bn.

 

The project management capabilities of HS2 Ltd, the taxpayer-funded company charged with building the railway, had fallen “well short of best practice”, and its executive team lacked “cohesion and common vision”, said the document.

It called for “greater transparency and frankness” about the timeline, costs and benefits of HS2, which will run from London to Birmingham in its initial phase, and later to Manchester and Leeds..

 

‘The government clearly misled parliament’

 

Tony Berkeley, a Labour peer and former engineer who worked on the High Speed 1 railway between London and the Channel tunnel, said: “The government clearly misled parliament by hiding this devastating report on HS2’s performance and cost overruns.

“If parliament voted for HS2 on false premises that calls into question the legitimacy of the project.”

 

The leaked HS2 report was written by Paul Mansell, an independent adviser who has worked at HS2 Ltd at the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s request.

He has also been a project assessment review team leader at the authority, which advises the Cabinet Office and the Treasury on big infrastructure schemes.

 

According to the government’s so-called traffic light assessment system for big infrastructure projects, HS2 has received an “amber/red” rating by the authority for each of the past six years — meaning there is a “high risk” of it not delivering value for money.

But Mr Mansell’s report suggests the rating should have been red: the successful delivery of the project “appears to be unachievable . . . the project may need rescoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.

 

 

Vanity project championed by the Tories

 

Nick Macpherson, Treasury permanent secretary from 2005 until March 2016, said HS2 was viewed as a political vanity project — it had been championed by former prime minister David Cameron’s government, including his chancellor George Osborne.

He added the Treasury generally preferred incremental improvements to the railways, saying it was not a priority “to make it easier to come from Birmingham to London”.

 

Mr Mansell’s report is just the latest controversy to hit the HS2 project, which went ahead in spite of 2,588 objections by a wide range of people and organisations, as well criticism by MPs and peers, and the National Audit Office, the public spending watchdog.

 

Simon Kirby resigned as HS2 Ltd chief executive in September 2016 following a report that, according to people close to the company, was critical of boardroom governance.

HS2 Ltd said he resigned to take up a job at Rolls-Royce. Mr Kirby, who while at HS2 Ltd was the UK’s highest paid civil servant on £750,000, was later accused by MPs of approving redundancy payments to employees worth almost £2m against the instructions of the Department for Transport.

He denied any wrongdoing.

 

In March 2017, HS2 Ltd scrapped a £170m contract to design the second phase of the project with US engineering group CH2M after allegations of a conflict of interest. Rival bidder Mace highlighted how Mark Thurston, HS2 Ltd’s then newly installed chief executive, was a former CH2M employee.

 

 

Evidence of cost overruns is growing

 

More recently, scores of people have complained about low property valuations and delays in compensation payments after their homes and offices were requisitioned by HS2 Ltd because of their location on the railway’s route.

HS2 Ltd is engaged in the UK’s largest set of land and property purchases since the second world war, and flaws in its valuation methodology were raised in two confidential reports for the company in 2015 by Deloitte and PwC.

 

Meanwhile, three former senior executives at HS2 Ltd have said they were dismissed in 2015 and 2016 for warning about significant inaccuracies in the project’s official budget for buying land and property.

 

Evidence of cost overruns is growing. HS2 Ltd has bought just 20 per cent of the properties along the first phase of the route, but already spent £1.6bn of the £2.8bn it has allocated to the exercise.

HS2 said it did “not recognise or agree with” the analysis in Mr Mansell’s report, “or the figures it contains”.

 

“The Infrastructure and Projects Authority recently described the HS2 programme as ‘on target to be completed on time and on budget’,” it added.

HS2 said it had added “further strength” to its executive team with the appointment of a new finance director and chief operating officer.

 

Neither Philip Hammond, the chancellor, nor Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, saw Mr Mansell’s report, according to government officials.

They said Mr Mansell was not tasked with assessing HS2’s costs and that ministers disagreed with what he concluded.

The transport department said: “This is an internal report representing an individual’s personal views.

We are keeping a tough grip on costs and HS2 is on time and on budget at £55.7bn.” PwC and Deloitte declined to comment.

Mr Mansell was unavailable for comment.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[Mike Storey]

It used to be the case that major investments like these did not really cost all that much at all. The money spent was going to UK companies paying UK-based employees and suppliers. So the money all went round several times with the Govt collecting lots of taxes and so little real net cost.

 

These days, it's more difficult. A lot of the contracts go to foreign companies using other foreign contractors. Much less of the money gets recycled within our economy.

 

But, yes, we still need HS2.

 

That may be very true of new trains and locos much of the time these days. But I am not aware of any major use of foreign labour on UK rail infrastructure work (except for very specialist roles on nearly unique equipment)? There are of course some EU migrants, much as there always used to be Irish workers, on many jobs, but that is incidental to the nationality of the company undertaking the work. The fact that most major infrastructure design houses and construction companies are now part or wholly owned subsidiaries of international companies, rarely translates into overseas based work, unless that is unavoidable. The major, specialist suppliers to such works have always been international, back into BR days. For example, specific glass types have only been available from either France or Germany for decades (since Pilkington became a foreign company). Conversely, the bulk of FB rail production has shifted from France back into the UK. 

 

If international companies have UK subsidiaries, those subsidiaries pay the appropriate UK taxes (bar some gee-whiz off-shoring of profits in the mode of Google, Starbucks etc, but there is little evidence of that in design and construction, as the outputs of those companies are much too obvious). All that is lost is the profit, post any tax due, to an off-shore parent company, but many of those companies, both European and US, have major UK stockholders.

 

HS2 appears to have the support of Chinese investment, but the extent of that is opaque. No Chinese company yet has any certification to solely undertake infrastructure works, that I am yet aware of. When they have directly invested, in non-rail construction, they have had to partner with a company who holds the necessary safety, regulatory and other compliance approvals.

 

So, whilst the added value profitability has diverged away from solely UK-owned companies (such as the star performer that was Carillion), UK taxpayers, whether as individual employees or companies, still tend to be the vast bulk of the GDP benefit.

 

Thus, I am unclear as to where you have drawn your opinion?

[Ron Ron Ron]

Another FT report has been published today.

 

 

The benefits of HS2 are becoming harder to discern

 

The high-speed railway will cost more than planned, but the alternatives may be worse

 

 

The wheels are coming off High Speed 2.

The ambitious high-speed railway was proposed almost a decade ago in a bid to improve Britain’s ageing transport infrastructure and ease congestion on the nation’s north-south rail links.

 

For Labour and Conservative-led governments, it was a symbol of a re-energised nation, a grand projet in the vein of the engineering triumphs of the Victorian era.

 

The time savings would be significant: an hour shaved off the journey from London to Manchester, 30 minutes fewer to travel between Birmingham and the capital.

 

Yet, as with so many of the UK’s ambitious public sector schemes, the reality has proved less glorious.

HS2 has encountered successive delays, government reviews and questions about its viability.

 

Eventually, the government put the project into law last February.

But concerns about value for money have not disappeared.

 

At a time when the demands on the public purse are huge, is it really the best use of £56bn?

 

Thanks to a report leaked to the Financial Times, MPs will be wondering what they have signed up for.

 

According to a document prepared for the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority, HS2 is “fundamentally flawed” and the railway is likely to overshoot its sizeable budget by an astonishing 20 to 60 per cent.

HS2 Ltd, the company responsible for constructing the railway, is excoriated for failing to adopt best management practice or construct a coherent vision for the scheme. 

 

The authority calls for more public frankness about the costs and benefits of HS2.

For the vocal band of anti-HS2 campaigners, this is more grist to their mill.

The scheme’s critics range from those who think it is a waste of public funds to environmentalists who worry about building on more of Britain’s countryside.

 

The leaked report does seem to throw the whole project into question.

Given that the chancellor Philip Hammond and transport secretary Chris Grayling did not read this critical analysis, it is fair to ask whether ministers and MPs fully understood what they were voting for.

 

Whether the government should continue with HS2 — or kill it off for good — depends on what the alternatives are.

 

Anyone who has travelled on British railways would agree they need improving.

The country needs to be better connected and better infrastructure is the key to stronger economic growth.

 

Back in 2012, Network Rail conducted an investigation into the alternatives and concluded HS2 was still the best option.

When it examined spending the money on improvements elsewhere, the government concluded that it was not worth the disruption.

Upgrading the existing West Coast main line, for example, with longer trains, new platforms and better signalling would bring much more limited capacity benefits.

And whatever happens, London Euston station would have to be rebuilt.

 

So the decision was made then to steam ahead.

 

The same question is posed about HS2 now: would the alternatives better connect the country at a lower cost?

Or should the money just be spent on something entirely different, such as better regional links?

 

The summer chaos on the Thameslink and Northern railways underlines the challenges involved when trying to beef up existing railways.

Money is being ploughed into improvements but at the cost of huge passenger disruption.

So the case for starting afresh with HS2, as France did with the TGV, remains — but only just.

Regional railways deserve more money, but the inter-city lines are just as deserving.

 

One thing, however, is clear: the government must be honest about the costs and challenges of building a huge new railway on this small island.

 

 

 

 

.

[Mike Storey]

 

 

 

  Leaked HS2 report claims scheme ‘fundamentally flawed’

 

Rail project in ‘precarious position’ and may exceed £56bn budget by as much as 60%

 

 

Successful delivery appears unachievable, says report’s author

Project hit by series of controversies

Scores of people yet to receive compensation

 

Racing through the countryside at 250mph, the planned new high-speed train line from London to the Midlands and northern England should be one of the fastest in the world.

But it is also set to be one of the most expensive.

 

A leaked document prepared for the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority warned shortly before the High Speed 2 railway was approved by parliament in February 2017 that the scheme was “fundamentally flawed” and would overshoot its £56bn budget by as much as 60 per cent.

 

The December 2016 document, marked “sensitive” and “not for publication”, said Europe’s biggest infrastructure project was in a “precarious position” and would be “classified as ‘failed’ by any internationally recognised definition”.

It added that HS2 was “highly likely to significantly overspend, 20 to 60 per cent”, which would increase the cost to as much as £90bn.

 

The project management capabilities of HS2 Ltd, the taxpayer-funded company charged with building the railway, had fallen “well short of best practice”, and its executive team lacked “cohesion and common vision”, said the document.

It called for “greater transparency and frankness” about the timeline, costs and benefits of HS2, which will run from London to Birmingham in its initial phase, and later to Manchester and Leeds..

 

‘The government clearly misled parliament’

 

Tony Berkeley, a Labour peer and former engineer who worked on the High Speed 1 railway between London and the Channel tunnel, said: “The government clearly misled parliament by hiding this devastating report on HS2’s performance and cost overruns.

“If parliament voted for HS2 on false premises that calls into question the legitimacy of the project.”

 

The leaked HS2 report was written by Paul Mansell, an independent adviser who has worked at HS2 Ltd at the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s request.

He has also been a project assessment review team leader at the authority, which advises the Cabinet Office and the Treasury on big infrastructure schemes.

 

According to the government’s so-called traffic light assessment system for big infrastructure projects, HS2 has received an “amber/red” rating by the authority for each of the past six years — meaning there is a “high risk” of it not delivering value for money.

But Mr Mansell’s report suggests the rating should have been red: the successful delivery of the project “appears to be unachievable . . . the project may need rescoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.

 

 

Vanity project championed by the Tories

 

Nick Macpherson, Treasury permanent secretary from 2005 until March 2016, said HS2 was viewed as a political vanity project — it had been championed by former prime minister David Cameron’s government, including his chancellor George Osborne.

He added the Treasury generally preferred incremental improvements to the railways, saying it was not a priority “to make it easier to come from Birmingham to London”.

 

Mr Mansell’s report is just the latest controversy to hit the HS2 project, which went ahead in spite of 2,588 objections by a wide range of people and organisations, as well criticism by MPs and peers, and the National Audit Office, the public spending watchdog.

 

Simon Kirby resigned as HS2 Ltd chief executive in September 2016 following a report that, according to people close to the company, was critical of boardroom governance.

HS2 Ltd said he resigned to take up a job at Rolls-Royce. Mr Kirby, who while at HS2 Ltd was the UK’s highest paid civil servant on £750,000, was later accused by MPs of approving redundancy payments to employees worth almost £2m against the instructions of the Department for Transport.

He denied any wrongdoing.

 

In March 2017, HS2 Ltd scrapped a £170m contract to design the second phase of the project with US engineering group CH2M after allegations of a conflict of interest. Rival bidder Mace highlighted how Mark Thurston, HS2 Ltd’s then newly installed chief executive, was a former CH2M employee.

 

 

Evidence of cost overruns is growing

 

More recently, scores of people have complained about low property valuations and delays in compensation payments after their homes and offices were requisitioned by HS2 Ltd because of their location on the railway’s route.

HS2 Ltd is engaged in the UK’s largest set of land and property purchases since the second world war, and flaws in its valuation methodology were raised in two confidential reports for the company in 2015 by Deloitte and PwC.

 

Meanwhile, three former senior executives at HS2 Ltd have said they were dismissed in 2015 and 2016 for warning about significant inaccuracies in the project’s official budget for buying land and property.

 

Evidence of cost overruns is growing. HS2 Ltd has bought just 20 per cent of the properties along the first phase of the route, but already spent £1.6bn of the £2.8bn it has allocated to the exercise.

HS2 said it did “not recognise or agree with” the analysis in Mr Mansell’s report, “or the figures it contains”.

 

“The Infrastructure and Projects Authority recently described the HS2 programme as ‘on target to be completed on time and on budget’,” it added.

HS2 said it had added “further strength” to its executive team with the appointment of a new finance director and chief operating officer.

 

Neither Philip Hammond, the chancellor, nor Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, saw Mr Mansell’s report, according to government officials.

They said Mr Mansell was not tasked with assessing HS2’s costs and that ministers disagreed with what he concluded.

The transport department said: “This is an internal report representing an individual’s personal views.

We are keeping a tough grip on costs and HS2 is on time and on budget at £55.7bn.” PwC and Deloitte declined to comment.

Mr Mansell was unavailable for comment.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Paul Mansell? Who he? Never heard of him.

 

The only name I can find associated with such work, is a consultant for HKA. Turns out his only real involvement in projects, until he became a consultant, was with the MOD/Defence industry.

 

Who HKA?

 

They are the people employed by HS2 Ltd to shape their risk management strategy and analysis, and stakeholder engagement strategy and process (which includes property owners on the line of route) amongst other things. They praise the HS2 project in their blurb, for being properly controlled and well on course.

 

Strange or what? (Unless there is another Paul Mansell in this field who is extraordinarily absent from interweb search engines).

[The Stationmaster]

Paul Mansell? Who he? Never heard of him.

 

The only name I can find associated with such work, is a consultant for HKA. Turns out his only real involvement in projects, until he became a consultant, was with the MOD/Defence industry.

 

Who HKA?

 

They are the people employed by HS2 Ltd to shape their risk management strategy and analysis, and stakeholder engagement strategy and process (which includes property owners on the line of route) amongst other things. They praise the HS2 project in their blurb, for being properly controlled and well on course.

 

Strange or what? (Unless there is another Paul Mansell in this field who is extraordinarily absent from interweb search engines).

 

He would appear to be this one  (info found on the 'net) -

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

It's also telling that a project started under Labour, supported by the Lib Dem/Tory coalition and the subsequent Tory governments is described as a 'Vanity project championed by the Tories'.  Parts of the news piece seems more like a political attack on the current Government than an actual critique of HS2. 

 

And if the ex-treasury secretary really does think that the purpose of HS2 is “to make it easier to come from Birmingham to London” then he's clearly not been paying attention. 

 

Evidence of cost overruns is growing. HS2 Ltd has bought just 20 per cent of the properties along the first phase of the route, but already spent £1.6bn of the £2.8bn it has allocated to the exercise.

 

That seems fairly meaningless, without knowing what that 20% represents. If it's really just 20% of the bits of land on the list, then it's perfectly possible for them to come to over 50% of the the value, as the project may be targeting the big expensive ones for purchase first (especially as construction is starting at the London end - buying up bits of farmland is an awful lot cheaper than buying up bits of Euston). 

Edited July 26, 2018 by pete_mcfarlane

[lmsforever]

It  still is a great deal of money for a project that could drain money away from projects that are needed for ordinary mortals to travel easily.The first section is a glorified commuter link with very high fares I wonder if season tickets will be on offer?

[62613]

The first section is a glorified commuter link with very high fares I wonder if season tickets will be on offer?

If I buy a lottery ticket, can you fill in the (winning) numbers for me please?

[Mike Storey]

He would appear to be this one  (info found on the 'net) -

 

PMansl.jpg

 

Thanks Mike - this looks more like the chap, but the biog notes seem to have been mixed up with the other Mansell. I must have been looking at two versions, thinking it was the same person! Some coincidence of names - do you mind if we call you Bruce to avoid confusion?

 

I note both HS2 Ltd and HMG have refuted the conclusions from the report, and that the IPA endorsed the last strategic statement from HS2 without demur. It strikes me that someone whose only real-life experience (i.e. having actual responsibility for what was ultimately delivered) was in the MOD and FCO, whose past record on procurement and project delivery/governance is somewhat mixed, is perhaps not the strongest voice, despite his apparent academic heights and range of declared, past top-rank clients.

 

Highlighting already known risks is one thing, but extrapolating project success from such data is an art rather than a science, and would undoubtedly have to incorporate a huge number of known unknowns and unknown unknowns, at this stage, so the argument surrounds adequate contingency allowances, upon which the 50% optimism bias has already been included. He has just interpreted such data differently, and was not apparently even engaged to undertake costs review. If his conclusion about success against a defined business case, was based solely on an expectation of cost overruns (the article does not appear to say why other than for property costs, which seem to represent a relatively minor percentage of the total) and does not, apparently, explore timescale compliance, it is missing half the plot. He would also have only had sufficient data for such a detailed examination for Phase 1, so how on earth he managed to extract such a prediction for all phases, is unclear to me. But who knows? I doubt it will ever see the light of day.

[Covkid]

It  still is a great deal of money for a project that could drain money away from projects that are needed for ordinary mortals to travel easily.The first section is a glorified commuter link with very high fares I wonder if season tickets will be on offer?

 

The success of HS2 will be measured by how successful it will be integrated into UK life.  i was a critic of the project when it was first launched and still have major concerns, but the fact remains that for some journeys it will provide a choice.  Critical is what kind of service is to be offered. Obviously with phase one it is pretty much London - Birmingham but with the development of the triangular junction taking HS2 to join the WCML near Hints in East Staffordshire other journeys open up. The other leg of the "Y" taking you north to Toton, Sheffield etc with connections to the north, many more possibilities.

 

Imagine rocking up at Sheffield for a train to Birmingham. Theoretically there will be whatever XC migrates into by then on a replacement for a Voyager, or there is possibly a HS2 service to Curzon St.  The subtle point here is whether HS2 provides the additional choices, or whether HS2 subsumes existing routes. Perhaps parts of the Cross Country network will be removed and replaced by HS2 - who knows ?

 

Similarly the VWC service from Piccadilly to Euston which is currently three Pendolinos an hour might reduce to just one express and a "semi" if business is transferred to HS2. Undoubtedly some stations with a geographical disadavantage might have improved fortunes - Stafford, Coventry and Rugby for example.

 

The greatest disappointment for me is that we are having a brand new railway but the huge majority, if not all the rolling stock using it will be to cramped classic British loading gauge. I wait events.  

[Edwin_m]

The success of HS2 will be measured by how successful it will be integrated into UK life.  i was a critic of the project when it was first launched and still have major concerns, but the fact remains that for some journeys it will provide a choice.  Critical is what kind of service is to be offered. Obviously with phase one it is pretty much London - Birmingham but with the development of the triangular junction taking HS2 to join the WCML near Hints in East Staffordshire other journeys open up. The other leg of the "Y" taking you north to Toton, Sheffield etc with connections to the north, many more possibilities.

 

Imagine rocking up at Sheffield for a train to Birmingham. Theoretically there will be whatever XC migrates into by then on a replacement for a Voyager, or there is possibly a HS2 service to Curzon St.  The subtle point here is whether HS2 provides the additional choices, or whether HS2 subsumes existing routes. Perhaps parts of the Cross Country network will be removed and replaced by HS2 - who knows ?

 

Similarly the VWC service from Piccadilly to Euston which is currently three Pendolinos an hour might reduce to just one express and a "semi" if business is transferred to HS2. Undoubtedly some stations with a geographical disadavantage might have improved fortunes - Stafford, Coventry and Rugby for example.

 

The greatest disappointment for me is that we are having a brand new railway but the huge majority, if not all the rolling stock using it will be to cramped classic British loading gauge. I wait events.  

The connection northwards is an integral part of Phase 1 and expected to open at the same time, so trains between London and Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Scotland as well as Birmingham should also benefit from the start (or perhaps nearly so - if I was running it would ask for a few months of operating to Birmingham only to bed things in). 

 

The big imponderable is what happens to the classic line services, and there hasn't been much said about this apart from some rather aspirational reports which are basically just floating a few ideas. 

 

For Manchester I think the through classic London service will disappear because the HS2 services in Phase 1 and phase 2a will need the three paths through Stockport.  At Phase 2a the Manchester trains all run via Crewe and I think at this point Macclesfield and Stoke are supposed to get an hourly London service via HS2.  There would be fewer trains between those places and Manchester but still two Cross Country and a slow every hour so not too bad. 

 

I think Cross Country will still have trains between Leeds or York and Birmingham by the existing route, simply because there are so many places in between that need service.  However HS2 will provide a far quicker journey for those travelling between Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, York and further north, so these passengers won't be on the residual service which therefore has more space for shorter journeys.  That service probably won't go beyond York but it may continue to provide the service beyond Birmingham towards Bristol - I'd like to see provision for a connection to the classic network around Birmingham so HS2 trains could continuing beyond, but that would require eletrification to Bristol. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

If his conclusion about success against a defined business case, was based solely on an expectation of cost overruns (the article does not appear to say why other than for property costs, which seem to represent a relatively minor percentage of the total) and does not, apparently, explore timescale compliance, it is missing half the plot. 

 

It feels like they've picked up on some concerns around how the delivery of the project is being managed, and then used them to question the legitimacy of the need for HS2 itself. 

[Mike Storey]

 

The greatest disappointment for me is that we are having a brand new railway but the huge majority, if not all the rolling stock using it will be to cramped classic British loading gauge. I wait events.  

 

I agree with most of what you said, but your last sentence requires clarification?

 

The Phase 1 trains (up to 60 sets being procured actively), must be classic compatible (i.e. current UK loading gauge, UK1), otherwise there can be no direct services north of Birmingham, and it would be a false economy and a severe operational constraint to procure a few taller and wider units just for Curzon Street- Euston services only.

 

But trains procured for Phase 2b will be "captive" and to the "continental" loading gauge (see attached). I have seen no firm numbers of sets quoted (which is sensible given their need is at least 15 years away), but the 2b service pattern suggests a similar number would be needed, perhaps fewer overall if classic compatible set numbers are increased. But classic compatible will not be the "huge" majority you claim, only between Phases 1 and 2b.

 

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consulation_library/pdf/P2C40_HS2%20operation%20and%20train%20types.pdf

[Ron Ron Ron]

....The Phase 1 trains (up to 60 sets being procured actively), must be classic compatible ......

 

......But trains procured for Phase 2b will be "captive" and to the "continental" loading gauge (see attached). I have seen no firm numbers of sets quoted (which is sensible given their need is at least 15 years away),.......

 

 

The original concept was/is for two fleets (CC & captive).

 

At the present time, there is only one detailed technical train specification and that is for the CC fleet.

The procurement is for "a minimum of 54 trains".

 

The later phase two fleet, is to be the subject of a future procurement process.

There's a vague mention of up to 100 trains.

No specification has been drawn up or released and currently there now appears to be no reference that I can see to that fleet being "captive".

Quite worrying if anything can be read into that.

 

 

If anyone is interested, the detailed technical train specification is available to read.

The detail almost goes down to the colour of the laces in the Train Captain's shoes.

 

The HS2 fleet livery is also detailed in the spec.

White and "HS2 Blue".

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/730116/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P07_Train_Technical_Specification.pdf

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Note: The train livery section is on Pages  297 & 298

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/730116/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P07_Train_Technical_Specification.pdf

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

List of bidders for the rolling stock contract......

 

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/bombardier-and-hitachi-to-submit-joint-bid-for-hs2-train-contract.html  

 

 

.

[Pacific231G]

It used to be the case that major investments like these did not really cost all that much at all. The money spent was going to UK companies paying UK-based employees and suppliers. So the money all went round several times with the Govt collecting lots of taxes and so little real net cost.

 

These days, it's more difficult. A lot of the contracts go to foreign companies using other foreign contractors. Much less of the money gets recycled within our economy.

 

But, yes, we still need HS2.

I wonder how much of the work carried out to build the French network of LGVs and the TGVs that run on them went to non-French companies. They were operating under exactly the same rules and EEC/EU treaty obligations as our governments but somehow seem less bound by them.

 

The catch with the TGVs seems to be that they became what SNCF's management thought they were for. Running the world's fastest trains was far more exciting than developing traffic on boring old cross-country lines or making a success of wagonload freight instead of sending customers away if they couldn't generate a hundred wagons a week (or whatever the figure was) The "classic" network, or a great deal of it, wasn't invested in and in many places has deteriorated to the point of having to be closed and "temporarily" replaced by buses. 

 

I don't think that will ever be a problem with HS2 as Britain is far more dependent on its entire rail network which in general is groaning from undercapacity rather than deteriorating from lack of use.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Pacific231G

[locoholic]

I wonder how much of the work carried out to build the French network of LGVs and the TGVs that run on them went to non-French companies. They were operating under exactly the same rules and EEC/EU treaty obligations as our governments but somehow seem less bound by them.

 

The catch with the TGVs seems to be that they became what SNCF's management thought they were for. Running the world's fastest trains was far more exciting than developing traffic on boring old cross-country lines or making a success of wagonload freight instead of sending customers away if they couldn't generate a hundred wagons a week (or whatever the figure was) The "classic" network, or a great deal of it, wasn't invested in and in many places has deteriorated to the point of having to be closed and "temporarily" replaced by buses.

 

I don't think that will ever be a problem with HS2 as Britain is far more dependent on its entire rail network which in general is groaning from undercapacity rather than deteriorating from lack of use.

I wonder if the situation in France is due to the overwhelming dominance of Paris over the provincial cities? The way England is going, London is achieving the same dominance - and HS2 will reinforce that situation. Edited July 28, 2018 by locoholic