HS2 under review

[Siberian Snooper]

10 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Irresponsible at best to award contracts with high cancellation charges whilst project is reviewed. May turn out to be a big mistake later.

 

It was because Badcock included high cancellation charges in their bid to build the two carriers, that they got built, as a couple of times the government were ready to cancel them, until it was pointed out that the cost of building them was cheaper than not building them.

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

10 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Irresponsible at best to award contracts with high cancellation charges whilst project is reviewed. May turn out to be a big mistake later.

I mentioned a very large contract a few pages ago.

I do know rather more about it than the information that I posted.

I feel that I should not post any information that could expose my source.

The problem is that this contract involves several subcontracts, has a massive geographical coverage, needs a lot of manpower in different places and at different times and needs an arrangement to call off raw material as required.

It would be irresponsible for the project side not to sign it. It would be irresponsible for the other party not to include financial safeguards.

If the government changes its mind then it seems fair to me that they should pay.

An essential safeguard to me,rather than as you put it, a big mistake.

If there are no penalty clauses and the subcontractors go bust then the government will finish up with a hefty bill for redundancy payments and various other things so it is really swings and roundabouts.

Far better as I see it to have safeguards in the contracts.

Just seen that the media today have picked up on the cost of cancellation. I hear a figure of £12 billion being bandied about.

Bernard

[Siberian Snooper]

That was the figure, that I heard, but I couldn't remember whether it was millions or billions, hence my use of multi million as a get out of jail free, card.

 

 

[Mark Saunders]

All the new plans to spend the money saved will spend at least ten years in the planning and public enquiry followed by price cost increases!

[John Tomlinson]

Anyone watching Marr this morning will have seen an interview with Steve Barclay, the Brexit minister, who gave as clear a commitment to the project as one is likely to get prior to the official announcement. Looks as if I will have to eat my words from a page or two back - either that or Barclay is toast before sundown!

 

John.

[Flittersnoop]

49 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

Anyone watching Marr this morning will have seen an interview with Steve Barclay, the Brexit minister, who gave as clear a commitment to the project as one is likely to get prior to the official announcement. Looks as if I will have to eat my words from a page or two back - either that or Barclay is toast before sundown!

 

John.

I wonder what "the project" will look like: whether the maximum speed will be reduced, and whether both the Manchester and Leeds phases will be included?

[pete_mcfarlane]

6 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

I wonder what "the project" will look like: whether the maximum speed will be reduced, and whether both the Manchester and Leeds phases will be included?

Personally I'd abandon the Leeds phase, go "look, we assessed HS2 and cancelled a bit. Happy now?". And then commission as study on future highspeed lines that recommends a HS4 that looks very much like the cancelled bit of HS2 (and will face very little opposition on its own,  as it's all up north) which can be constucted to a schedule only a year or two behind what was originally planned.

[ess1uk]

Link here 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51255438

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Personally I'd abandon the Leeds phase, go "look, we assessed HS2 and cancelled a bit. Happy now?". And then commission as study on future highspeed lines that recommends a HS4 that looks very much like the cancelled bit of HS2 (and will face very little opposition on its own,  as it's all up north) which can be constucted to a schedule only a year or two behind what was originally planned.

UK politicians (the US's are even worse) are extremely good at cancelling something planned by their opponents because it is morally wrong/too expensive/won't work, then re-announcing something 99% similar 12 months later and claiming it all as their own idea.

[Neil]

21 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

Link here 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51255438

 

I saw that too. Looks like a pretty clear indication that HS2 will go ahead. Number 10 has been keeping all ministers on an incredibly short leash over the past few weeks so I'd be very surprised if Barclay was making an 'off the cuff' pronouncement.

[John Tomlinson]

1 hour ago, Flittersnoop said:

I wonder what "the project" will look like: whether the maximum speed will be reduced, and whether both the Manchester and Leeds phases will be included?

He does specifically refer to the "rebalancing" pledge, especially to the north. So unless he's gone rogue, looks unlikely to stop just at Birmingham.

 

John.

[class26]

5 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

He does specifically refer to the "rebalancing" pledge, especially to the north. So unless he's gone rogue, looks unlikely to stop just at Birmingham.

 

John.

 

Given all the new conservative seats in the north there is no way this is going to stop at B`ham,. That would give Labour 5 years to attack the Tories over and would be a political own goal 

[runs as required]

7 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I mentioned a very large contract a few pages ago.

I do know rather more about it than the information that I posted.

I feel that I should not post any information that could expose my source*.

The problem is that this contract involves several subcontracts, has a massive geographical coverage, needs a lot of manpower in different places and at different times and needs an arrangement to call off raw material as required.

It would be irresponsible for the project side not to sign it. It would be irresponsible for the other party not to include financial safeguards.

If the government changes its mind then it seems fair to me that they should pay.

An essential safeguard to me,rather than as you put it, a big mistake  ....

*I respect you for that 

"massive geographic coverage / manpower / materials" suggests to me that this is a contract that can reasonably be subject to "variation".

Which further supports those of us who anticipate that the political decision will be to go ahead but with lower speeds and pruning.

dh

[Ravenser]

On 25/01/2020 at 12:57, ruggedpeak said:

Why are HS2 supporters taking increasingly hysterical positions, as if cancellation of HS2 is the end of the world and no one will build anything ever again? And attributing to others things that are just silly? The idea that anyone who wants stop HS2 also wants to stop all projects is the sort of halfwitted nonsense we saw with Project Fear - and that failed spectacularly by alienating much of the non-hysterical public. It is delusional twaddle and smacks of desperation.

 

Time to accept HS2 is a basket case of a project and its demise, if it happens, will be in part a direct result of poor management and appalling comms - even on here none of its supporters can make a simple, clear and coherent case for HS2 that actually makes sense. The fact some have resorted to insults shows just how badly the argument has been lost. Nothing helps kill a project in the public mind than its supporters going publicly batty and abusive. Ultimately it is a political decision that will cover a much bigger picture than being discussed on here.

 

There are other pressing needs for investment across the UK , and the £15bn £36bn £56bn £80-100bn on this may well be better allocated elsewhere.

Do we need to get north and south quicker, frankly no IMHO because all it will do is draw more people and resource towards the economic and political overcrowded centre of gravity of London and the SE. What areas north of Watford need first is proper investment in their local infrastructure so they can work more effectively. And more investment in core public services where £5bn is not "chicken feed" as some on here have suggested. Whether that happens is another matter.

 

I am merely paraphrasing the fundamental position of an opponent of HS2 in the quotation given . He is indicating he is opposed to any project to expand rail capacity between northern and southern Britain, as being economically unsound and socially destructive. (I'm not clear that he would support any project to develop rail infrastructure , even in the North - the argument seems to be that all rail projects, and arguably all transport infrastructure projects, are fundamentally unsound, and should not be allowed).

 

He might simply be an anti-rail commentator. But if you don't supply rail capacity , then you need to provide capacity in some other transport mode - meaning either road (=motorways) or air (= new runways/terminals). But the quotation doesn't suggest either - there's a complete absence of alternative proposals, merely falling back on the suggestion that better transport links between south and north would be socially and economically undesirable and therefore shouldn't be built . That also seems to me a fair summary of your own comment:

Quote

Do we need to get north and south quicker, frankly no IMHO because all it will do is draw more people and resource towards the economic and political overcrowded centre of gravity of London and the SE.

 

I think that position is bizarre - but it does seem in several places  that opponents of HS2 are now  arguing that better transport links and more capacity are actually socially and economically undesirable, and hence the project should be cancelled

 

I should point out that "areas north of Watford" includes all those places served by Euston outer suburban services severely restricted by the current lack of capacity on the southern part of the WCML, not to mention those places on the Trent Valley where services are also restricted by capacity . There's a reason why Polesworth is in the 10 least used railway stations - most of its services were axed because there isn't enough capacity on the Trent Valley line , even after 4 tracking , to provide more than a vestigial local service

 

The campaign against HS2 is now starting to remind me , more than a little, of the campaign to cancel the London Olympics. That campaign with hindsight was badly misguided, but some of the arguments being used against HS2 are remarkably similar. It's also worth remembering that similar arguments were used to oppose the Channel Tunnel and CTRL, and actually succeeded in cancelling the first version of CTRL. Again, those arguments now look unsound. I remember a few years after opening the BBC produced a documentary attempting to argue that the Tunnel was a failed project in its own terms , since the shareholders weren't getting a dividend. I doubt if many people now would dare to argue that the Tunnel is a failure

 

A final point is the very long life of such infrastructure. Robert Stephenson's London and Birmingham will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of its act when HS2 opens south of Birmingham. Even then, the existing route will be earning its keep. The same goes for the Grand Junction north of Birmingham. You shouldn't be expecting the same level of annual return you would demand on an asset that has a working life of just 30 years

Edited January 26, 2020 by Ravenser

[Ravenser]

21 hours ago, Pandora said:

I demonstrate my "being completely out of touch"  by  the link to the report for alternative  transport schemes for the £50 bn loose  pocket change  if HS2 is cancelled:

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16562/attachments/original/1558213640/GBTC_REPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

 

My favourite is  scheme 14,  £18 bn to connect Liverpool to Hull including Manchester, Sheffield  ,Leeds, Bradford,York.

 

That report costed reopening to Ashington at £50 million . A couple of years ago, Network Rail costed that scheme at £230 million

 

If you put schemes down at 20% of their best estimated cost , and other schemes down at 125-200% of estimate , you can "prove" whatever you want

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

The campaign against HS2 is now starting to remind me , more than a little, of the campaign to cancel the London Olympics. That campaign with hindsight was badly misguided, but some of the arguments being used against HS2 are remarkably similar. It's also worth remembering that similar arguments were used to oppose the Channel Tunnel and CTRL, and actually succeeded in cancelling the first version of CTRL. Again, those arguments now look unsound. I remember a few years after opening the BBC produced a documentary attempting to argue that the Tunnel was a failed project in its own terms , since the shareholders weren't getting a dividend. I doubt if many people now would dare to argue that the Tunnel is a failure

 

A final point is the very long life of such infrastructure. Robert Stephenson's London and Birmingham will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of its act when HS2 opens south of Birmingham. Even then, the existing route will be earning its keep. The same goes for the Grand Junction north of Birmingham. You shouldn't be expecting the same level of annual return you would demand on an asset that has a working life of just 30 years

The Channel Tunnel and Millenium Dome were financial failures - they are successful today because shareholders and taxpayers took the hit. Ask anyone who invested in the Chunnel shares initially. The Dome was a spectacular waste of money until it was turned into a properly run leisure venue, after we as taxpayers had paid for it to be built. As for the Olympics, well they were a huge success but at a huge social and economic cost, especially for those living in the shadow of them. Made the UK look great but for those who were "in the way" of it the Olympics were not good at all. I suggest researching the impact on local businesses and communities - dear old Seb Coe made local schools (in some of the most deprived areas of the UK) pay to have the 2012 Olympics mascots visit their schools. If trampling over the little people is your thing then HS2 is a great idea.

 

As for HS2 opening in the 200th anniversary of the London to Birmingham, I will believe it when I see it. It will be late and the cost will be on its way towards £150bn+. £50 to a charity of your choice if it opens on time and less than £100bn. Save this thread for then.

Edited January 26, 2020 by ruggedpeak
typo

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

As for the Olympics, well they were a huge success but at a huge social and economic cost, especially for those living in the shadow of them. Made the UK look great but for those who were "in the way" of it the Olympics were not good at all. 

 

 

 

I really struggle to believe that the Olympics had "a huge social and economic cost". What was mainly in the way of the Olympics was Thornton Fields carriage sidings, Stratford International Freight Terminal (which I think was more or less defunct) and Stratford works. I'm not aware of any significant discontent in the area arising from the Games - and as it happens during the period of the Olympics I was working in Docklands on an 8 month contract, so I would have expected to pick up such vibes.

 

Stratford got a substantial upgrade to the station, the Olympic park with substantial new sports facilities for the whole city, a new stadium for West Ham , new walking access routes, and significant additional housing to a decent standard. I don't believe that the claim that the Olympics damaged East London can be made to stand up. I've literally never heard anyone claim before that any social problem in East London has been caused by the Olympics. Opponents of the Olympics claimed at the time they would inflict harm on the rest of the country - that manifestly didn't happen

 

As for "huge economic cost" -  are you suggesting it shaved a measurable fraction (even 0.1%?) off the size of the economy??? "Huge economic cost" is the sort of phrase used by opponents of Brexit , some of whom suggested this might equate to as much as an 8% reduction in GDP in a worst case scenario. Plainly it would be absurd to suggest the Olympics caused significant damage to the economy. They were certainly a "big ticket item" but that's completely different to saying they caused economic damage.

 

I didn't mention the Millenium Dome (which rather lost any purpose when the Blair Government decided they didn't really want to celebrate Britain) , but my point about the Tunnel and CTRL stands - does anyone today really think it would have been better if they hadn't been built??

 

Not every project is justified - the Humber Bridge is largely pointless (for most of it's history it's been coned down to one lane each way to minimise wear on the tarmac) and it was built simply as an election bribe offered by Barbera Castle to win a critical bye-election in Hull in the mid 60s. Kevin Macnamarra has the largest and most expensive personal monument in British history  - not even Caligula and Nero were so extravagant

 

But here there are clear capacity issues that need some kind of solution

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

The Channel Tunnel and Millenium Dome were financial failures - they are successful today because shareholders and taxpayers took the hit. Ask anyone who invested in the Chunnel shares initially. The Dome was a spectacular waste of money until it was turned into a properly run leisure venue, after we as taxpayers had paid for it to be built. As for the Olympics, well they were a huge success but at a huge social and economic cost, especially for those living in the shadow of them. Made the UK look great but for those who were "in the way" of it the Olympics were not good at all. I suggest researching the impact on local businesses and communities - dear old Seb Coe made local schools (in some of the most deprived areas of the UK) pay to have the 2012 Olympics mascots visit their schools. If trampling over the little people is your thing then HS2 is a great idea.

 

 

The Channel Tunnel and Millenium Dome were two completely, differently funded projects, for different reasons.

 

The Chunnel should have been built with, much cheaper, public money, as the French had intended. But Thatcher put paid to that. The Chunnel only involved £1.5 billion of equity, out of £9.5 billion of financing, the rest being bank loans of various sorts (up to 200 banks were involved at one point, including the EIB), with increasingly excessive interest. The shareholder revolt in the mid-00's resulted in most of the equity being saved, at the loss of shareholder privileges, most of which were not used anyway, but at the write-off of some £1.7 billion of debt - so not such a hit for shareholders as you make out, much more so for the banks. It was not an immediate, financial success, by any stretch of the imagination, but has continuously paid dividends since 2009 - not bad compared to many original railway company records.

 

The Millenium Dome on the other hand was a politicians' wet dream, badly managed and badly executed. It deserved all the opprobrium it got, until being changed to the O2.

 

But then, what has been the taxpayers' return on the M1, the M2, the M3, the M4 etc etc.? Huge subsidy for the road haulage industry, most of which is foreign owned, at the expense, to a large extent, of the rail industry.

 

As for the 2012 Olympics, the data and "studies" do not support your statement. Legitimate local businesses made a freaking fortune out of everything that went on. Less legitimate businesses did rather worse. For sure, many locals were priced out of accommodation, but then many more made a fortune out of selling up. As for "Seb Coe" making local schools pay for the visits, that is complete urban myth - I know because I was party to arranging some of them. We had a tidy budget for involving local schools, residents and local enterprises. The scheme not only created the Olympics, but also created the best transport hub East London has seen for a generation, created local transport links un-dreamt of prior to the Games, allowed redevelopment of the area beyond recognition from the complete, no hope, dump that preceded it and has triggered ongoing development to this day. The little people who did move out, were largely relocated to new, or newish, developments from which they can move around like never before. The rest (the thuggish gang leaders, drug dealers, pimps, con artists and "scrap dealers") are mostly in jail.

 

Any other glimpses of your views on major investment schemes you would like to share?

 

[Railpassion]

Part of the problem is the name. CTRL tells you what it is for but HS2 simply does not. New Northern Mainline, or Northern Rail Link, would be a better name. No emphasis on speed or the number 2. 

Birmingham should have been kept out of the publicity and phase one should have been all the way to Leeds or Manchester.

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Not every project is justified - the Humber Bridge is largely pointless (for most of it's history it's been coned down to one lane each way to minimise wear on the tarmac) and it was built simply as an election bribe offered by Barbera Castle to win a critical bye-election in Hull in the mid 60s. Kevin Macnamarra has the largest and most expensive personal monument in British history  - not even Caligula and Nero were so extravagant

 

 

The problem with the Humber bridge is the way the high quality road ends on the M180 / A180!

 

Coming from the south up the A1 why would you come along the M180 and use the Humber Bridge when there is a free motorway connection via the M18 & M62?

 

Had the high quality A15 dual carriageway continued south to Lincoln and tied into the improved A46 towards Leicester then the Humber Bridge would get a lot more use.

 

 

As ever it rather proves that only doing part of something usually results in a lot more waste compared to implementing a more extensive scheme - even if the initial outlay is grater!

[Northmoor]

10 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The Chunnel......... It was not an immediate, financial success, by any stretch of the imagination, but has continuously paid dividends since 2009 - not bad compared to many original railway company records.

 

The Millenium Dome on the other hand was a politicians' wet dream, badly managed and badly executed. It deserved all the opprobrium it got, until being changed to the O2.

 

But then, what has been the taxpayers' return on the M1, the M2, the M3, the M4 etc etc.? Huge subsidy for the road haulage industry, most of which is foreign owned, at the expense, to a large extent, of the rail industry.

 

As for the 2012 Olympics,

1. Tell me about it, I sold my shares just before that date..... (harrumph);

2. My objections to the Dome are (a) that having spent such eye-watering sums on it, the government then (almost literally) gave it away.  I could run a successful business in a stadium I'd paid nothing for, a lesson that wasn't learned with handing the Olympic stadium to West Ham United.  Also (b), so much was spent on building the new Wembley stadium, much to overcome access issues.  The government could have insisted the Dome site be used for the new stadium, as the infrastructure had already been paid for.

3. I'm not sure you're right on road haulage ownership.  The couple of listed firms (e.g. Wincanton, Stobart Group) could be owned by anyone but no doubt many of the shareholders are UK taxpayers.  Most road haulage in the UK is, I suspect, operated by UK-based family firms, many of them not big businesses.

4. I've worked overlooking the Olympic park for a while and would agree with 99% of your observations.  There is the odd bit of "No to Gentrification" graffiti but the alternative was an area most would have tried to leave given the chance.  I was one of those very uneasy of the Olympics and what they cost and to a degree, still am.  I suspect had "Super Saturday" not happened, the public view of the cost of 2012 would be very different.  They were delivered to a timescale that could not be moved, but only with an continuously-increasing budget.

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The problem with the Humber bridge is the way the high quality road ends on the M180 / A180!

 

Coming from the south up the A1 why would you come along the M180 and use the Humber Bridge when there is a free motorway connection via the M18 & M62?

 

Had the high quality A15 dual carriageway continued south to Lincoln and tied into the improved A46 towards Leicester then the Humber Bridge would get a lot more use.

 

 

As ever it rather proves that only doing part of something usually results in a lot more waste compared to implementing a more extensive scheme - even if the initial outlay is grater!

 

Unfortunately the main justification of the Humber Bridge was to link the East Riding and Lincolnshire. The demand doesn't justify it, and never did

 

Both my parents came from Hull: we lived in Lincolnshire during the 1970s and 80s. In 1970 it was a 4 hour drive round to Hull, which eventually came down to about 2.5 hrs with the M180, M18 and M62. Or you could take the New Holland ferry . I do not recall it being a serious difficulty getting a place for the car on the poop deck of the paddle steamers, and at the end the ferry was down to a one-boat service. That didn't seem to be a serious issue locally. 

 

With a good run it is now just possible to be in the centre of Hull in an hour. Almost 40 years after it opened the Bridge is still not busy. The reality is that people in Grimsby have limited need or desire to go to Hull, and vice versa - prior to 1980 "limited need" was "no real need". The fake county of Humberside was invented to manufacture a reason to justify the Bridge - it was universally disliked and eventually, thankfully, abolished after being arguably one of the worst education authorities in Britain

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

I really struggle to believe that the Olympics had "a huge social and economic cost". What was mainly in the way of the Olympics was Thornton Fields carriage sidings, Stratford International Freight Terminal (which I think was more or less defunct) and Stratford works. I'm not aware of any significant discontent in the area arising from the Games - and as it happens during the period of the Olympics I was working in Docklands on an 8 month contract, so I would have expected to pick up such vibes.

 

& the Olympics media centre was built on the old Hackney Stadium in Waterden Road.

It was re-built & the early 90s & declared bankrupt on the night it opened. The last Dog races & Speedway meetings were in the 90s & the place had been derelict since.

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Had the high quality A15 dual carriageway continued south to Lincoln and tied into the improved A46 towards Leicester then the Humber Bridge would get a lot more use.

 

...or the M11 got to Immingham as intended. 

[The Stationmaster]

On 24/01/2020 at 20:21, ruggedpeak said:

So anyone who disagrees can't see the big picture that only HS2 true believers can see the "Truth" and the "big picture"? Right, whatever. Whether HS2 is or is not a good thing and should or should not proceed is a judgement call. It is not a scientific fact.

 

When people start to believe in things with a religious fervour, can't comprehend why others may have another viewpoint and resort to calling things "stupid" etc then that is a good indicator that there is something seriously wrong. May be worth learning the lessons from recent political events about what happens when people become intolerant of other's viewpoints and assume only they know the "truth" and the right answer - they lose.

 

HS2 is just a poorly run infrastructure project.  But whether to cancel or not is a judgement call taking into account many variables beyond mythical benefits and "environmental mitigation". There is no right or wrong answer - anyone who thinks there is needs to get the bigger picture.

 

 

 

Maybe but one thing none of the doubters have yet been able to offer is a logical and readily achievable alternative to solving the line capacity situation on the WCML as it is now and will be in several years time and the line capacity problems which will develop on various other routes that the whole HS2 network should eventually relieve .

 

It is all well and good to shout to the rooftops that HS 2 should not be built but to shout tahh without offering a sensible alternative is rather daft to sat the very least.  If it isn't built what should be done instead - pleasde tell us.  Oh and don;yt forget that in order to have any validity the alternative will have to cost less than any of the estimated costs of HS2.  As this would all appear to some to be incredibly simple perhaps they will let us into the secret?