Jump to content
 

HS2 under review


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

80 - 90% of what or who?


I might be way off, but that’s just my perception of the increasing weight of public discourse against HS2.

I don’t agree with that opposition, in large part due to the lack of any credibility to the whole debate.

Whatever the actual weight of opinion against HS2 really is (who can measure it accurately?), there’s no doubting that there is now huge pressure to either descale the scope of the project, or to scrap it completely.

 

We need it, but it should not be costing 50, 100 or 106 billion £££.

 

If it’s scrapped, be prepared for even worst political chaos over overcrowding and the lack of capacity in the years ahead.

How much will a ticket have to cost to control demand?

Should walk up rail fares be abolished and travel be limited to reserved, limited availability tickets (first come first served rationing)?

Some serious choices will have to be faced.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There are a few proponents of the scheme who do their best to fight the misinformation from certain quarters, but it is difficult to communicate the benefits of HS2 to people who really don't understand the need to invest in national infrastructure.

 

HS2 themselves were slow off the mark with a media campaign and are only now beginning to catch up. Their cause has not been helped by those who focus on potential time savings, rather than the benefits of additional capacity on the classic network.

 

If HS2 is scrapped or severely cut back, the repercussions will be serious over the longer term. 

  • Agree 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

This latest “ news” on HS2 costs going even higher, is being discussed on all the national talk radio stations and has been the main subject on all the phone-in programmes this morning.

On here, most of us know that the public and political debate is very poorly informed and that “public opinion” and the opinions of many politicians, is largely grounded in ignorance and misconceptions.

However, that “public opinion” and the growing weight of political opposition, is very likely to bring this project to a halt, or at the very least, see it significantly cut back in scope.
I can’t see how something like 80 to 90% opposition to the scheme, is going to be ignored.


What we (here and everywhere else) cannot ignore, is that the supposed cost of this project has gone completely out of control.

Even with an acceptance that it will cost a lot more to purchase the land and carry out all the major tunnelling and complicate civil engineering works, than comparable schemes elsewhere have cost, the sums being bandied about beggar belief.


Is this what happens when a government created quango (HS2) is set up and virtually given free reign to run every aspect of a major infrastructure project?
HS2 , the organisation, is a whole discussion subject in itself.

 

 

 

Ron

The thing which interests me about all these numbers being thrown around is nit the actual  numbers but what they represent.  Dead easy for any newspaper hack, or anybody else, to say the cost has increased by £Ybillion but why has it increased by that amount over whatever period.  Each successive alleged increase needs to be properly stated by those quoting it and explained then we can see where and why the money is going.

 

I would hate to see this absolutely essential project killed off through the ignorance of those moaning about its cost without any indication at all of where a particular cost has come from and why it has increased.  I for one have a rather nasty suspicion that much of the alleged increases actually relate to non-inflationary changes to the actual civil and railway engineering costs involved in constructing the line to the original plans.  i.e. cost increases have been driven by numerous extraneous factors such as additional tunnelling and all sorts of add-ons 'for environmental reasons'.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Also, you can take one of two approaches at the start:

Say what you think it should cost based on your best (informed) estimates; and then risk the costs increasing as the scope is changed, and inflation occurs through the years.

Take the above figure, add in contingencies, inflation over the life of the project, allowance for changes to the specification and a "safety factor" as now demanded by the Treasury.

The first course gets approval but at the risk of costs rising. The second gets turned down as too expensive.

Certainly the Treasury rules have changed since the project was first proposed, which will have added "costs".

Nearer home to me, the replacement river bridge at Machynlleth (needed because it is both inadequate and floods frequently) was originally costed at £20 million. Approval for a project at £46 million has now been given. I really don't know how much of that is different specification, how much is inflation and how much is other factors. But it is a big difference.

Ans when did any major civil engineering project ever come in at the originally quoted cost? You only have to delay it five years and the cost goes up 10% just with inflation.

Jonathan

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

This latest “ news” on HS2 costs going even higher, is being discussed on all the national talk radio stations and has been the main subject on all the phone-in programmes this morning.

On here, most of us know that the public and political debate is very poorly informed and that “public opinion” and the opinions of many politicians, is largely grounded in ignorance and misconceptions.

However, that “public opinion” and the growing weight of political opposition, is very likely to bring this project to a halt, or at the very least, see it significantly cut back in scope.
I can’t see how something like 80 to 90% opposition to the scheme, is going to be ignored.

 

Absence polling, we really don't know what the public opinion is.

 

Talk radio / online newspaper comment sections do not reflect the population at large, they are a very specific subsection of people.

 

5 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

What we (here and everywhere else) cannot ignore, is that the supposed cost of this project has gone completely out of control.

Even with an acceptance that it will cost a lot more to purchase the land and carry out all the major tunnelling and complicate civil engineering works, than comparable schemes elsewhere have cost, the sums being bandied about beggar belief.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Large infrastructure projects are expensive, difficult to accurately cost in the planning stages, and major works in (expensive) cities always have surprises that drive costs up.  There is a reason why the private sector doesn't do major infrastructure.

 

5 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:


Is this what happens when a government created quango (HS2) is set up and virtually given free reign to run every aspect of a major infrastructure project?
HS2 , the organisation, is a whole discussion subject in itself.

 

Then how to you explain Crossrail?  The Berlin airport?  Boston's big dig?  Where they all run by the HS2 quango, or is it maybe just big projects come with big price tags and complications?

 

Really, the only reason the cost of HS2 is an issue is because some people see advantage in trying to grab it's budget and use for their own pet projects.  It's not as though if any part of it gets cancelled the money will be left unspent, but rather it reflects that the government isn't spending enough on infrastructure in general to meet all the needs the country has - and as long as that continues there will be people attacking whatever projects get funded as they try and divert the funding.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

Really, the only reason the cost of HS2 is an issue is because some people see advantage in trying to grab it's budget and use for their own pet projects.  It's not as though if any part of it gets cancelled the money will be left unspent, but rather it reflects that the government isn't spending enough on infrastructure in general to meet all the needs the country has - and as long as that continues there will be people attacking whatever projects get funded as they try and divert the funding.

 

Could it be possible that the only reason the cost of HS2 is an issue is because £107 billion pounds is a truly huge sum of money? Putting that sort of money into the hands of an industry that of late is associated in the public mind with poor value for money, unreliable service, missed deadlines and cost overruns was bound to be controversial.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

 

Could it be possible that the only reason the cost of HS2 is an issue is because £107 billion pounds is a truly huge sum of money? Putting that sort of money into the hands of an industry that of late is associated in the public mind with poor value for money, unreliable service, missed deadlines and cost overruns was bound to be controversial.

 

Yet it isn`t one years NHS budget !

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flittersnoop said:

 

Could it be possible that the only reason the cost of HS2 is an issue is because £107 billion pounds is a truly huge sum of money? Putting that sort of money into the hands of an industry that of late is associated in the public mind with poor value for money, unreliable service, missed deadlines and cost overruns was bound to be controversial.

 

Is it really that huge a sum of money?  Or does it just seem, given the size of household budgets, that it is a huge sum?

 

Given the project takes about 20 years, that is only £5.35 billion a year.

 

For comparison, the UK budget in 2017 (quickest I found) spent £142 billion on health care, £46 billion on defense, £20.4 billion on "other" for a grand total of £781 billion.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_budget_detail_18bt12018n#ukgs303

 

Or some other prices for comparison.

 

Lockheed F35 fighter jet - $80 million per plane

 

Boeing reportedly spent somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion developing the 737-Max, and sells each plane in the region of $120 million - and Boeing went with the Max and its now obvious issues because designing an entirely new plane would be in the $11 billion range (based on 2011 investor conference call).

 

Large infrastructure projects, whether rail or otherwise, are pretty much by definition expensive and complicated (and always have been).  And get price increases.

 

Salt Lake City airport expansion - initially estimated at $1.8 billion currently stands at $4.1 billion - https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/01/15/price-new-salt-lake-city/

 

In Toronto, the rebuilding of Union Station has taken 5 years longer than scheduled and is C$200 million over budget (on on initial budget of C$640 million.  And when it finally finishes this year they still won't have increased the train capacity, which will be the next step.

 

And I suspect I could search online and find page after page of infrastructure projects that ran over budget and took longer than planned.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the BBC itself is not immune from huge cost increases; Their new set for Eastenders, not anywhere comparable in scale or complexity to HS2, will cost £27 million more than its budget of £59.7 million, and will be finished 5 years late; As reported by the BBC itself !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46521700

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Even the BBC itself is not immune from huge cost increases; Their new set for Eastenders, not anywhere comparable in scale or complexity to HS2, will cost £27 million more than its budget of £59.7 million, and will be finished 5 years late; As reported by the BBC itself !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46521700

 

Interesting, but not just for the cost increase but rather the example of the something of a double standard that makes us believe government projects are inherently badly run.

 

Note the comments near the end on how ITV's Coronation Street also built a new set, but that the budget wasn't public - so we have no idea not only how much it cost, but if it came in on budget (and whether it did or didn't, if it faced similar issues to the BBC with contamination of the site).

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mdvle said:

And I suspect I could search online and find page after page of infrastructure projects that ran over budget and took longer than planned.


.......... going back to Stephenson and Brunel.

 

A point to note carefully is that HS2 hasn't overspent - what has happened is that the cost estimates have risen, which is a different thing.

 

It is far better at this stage to be talking about sensible/conservative estimates, maybe 80% confidence than, low estimates at what is actually very low confidence, maybe 5%.

 

The only time anyone ever knows the cost of a project with 100% certainty is after its finished. Until then, it’s always an estimate.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everyone uses the banks, most people use the NHS, so money sent in that direction is perceived as necessary, if not actually well spent. The BBC is regarded as poorly run and profligate, so hardly a good example to use in the context of HS2. Boeing's shareholders should be very worried at the moment. Who are HS2 shareholders? Us, hence the alarm at the prospect of yet another major hike in the likely cost of the project. 

 

£107 million is a lot of money: £107 billion really is a huge sum to spend on a railway line that will be used by only a very small proportion of the population, especially, as I said, when the rail industry has acquired a reputations for poor value for money, unreliable services, missed deadlines and budget overruns. That kind of context can't be dismissed when it's public money being used.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

It's the biggest white elephant around, we're in deep but should get out now, no good will come of it, who cares if you can get to London 20 minutes quicker, 

 

To repeat, for anyone new to the thread, it isn't about getting to London faster but about the unavoidable fact that the WCML has run/is running out of capacity at the southern end and that HS2 is the cheaper (both in cost and in avoidance of disruption of existing services) solution to adding capacity.

 

For more details you can browse the 192 pages were it has been explained in depth about how the time savings is a red herring.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Phaeton said:

It's the biggest white elephant around, we're in deep but should get out now, no good will come of it, who cares if you can get to London 20 minutes quicker, 

Is this a comment on HS2 generally? Have you understood what it does? It may help reduce journey times from the North, but its principal value is in enabling more travel opportunities from the West Midlands and intermediate places to London, currently starved of trains because there isn't the physical capacity to run nearly enough. More trains also means fewer cars on M1, means less pollution. Doesn't any of that matter? 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:


.......... going back to Stephenson and Brunel.

 

A point to note carefully is that HS2 hasn't overspent - what has happened is that the cost estimates have risen, which is a different thing.

 

It is far better at this stage to be talking about sensible/conservative estimates, maybe 80% confidence than, low estimates at what is actually very low confidence, maybe 5%.

 

The only time anyone ever knows the cost of a project with 100% certainty is after its finished. Until then, it’s always an estimate.

 

 

 

 

 

Sobering to think we are still using infrastructure started to be built in the 1820s.....

 

That's 200 years for those who can't add up. Isn't it time for some new things?

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

To repeat, for anyone new to the thread, it isn't about getting to London faster but about the unavoidable fact that the WCML has run/is running out of capacity at the southern end and that HS2 is the cheaper (both in cost and in avoidance of disruption of existing services) solution to adding capacity.

 

For more details you can browse the 192 pages were it has been explained in depth about how the time savings is a red herring.

Unfortunate, then, that it is common knowledge that the HS in HS2 stands for High Speed! I'm surprised the project hasn't been re-branded, as that's a common tactic used to try to change people's perceptions these days.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Flittersnoop said:

Unfortunate, then, that it is common knowledge that the HS in HS2 stands for High Speed! I'm surprised the project hasn't been re-branded, as that's a common tactic used to try to change people's perceptions these days.

 

Sadly, also covered in the 192 pages that the public relations part of the project has been an abysmal failure.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

GET IT BUILT - NOW - ALL OF IT

 

The UK is the FIFTH largest economy on the planet. There is NO shortage of money. Investigate the Caymans etc (£billions of unpaid tax) Mr Virgin included !!!! Heads must roll (or be locked up - or sent to Woodhead with a spade (see below) !!

 

Also electrify Manchester - Leeds - York, ALL OF IT - lots of other lines also ASAP.

 

Reopen Woodhead to link the two arms of HS2 to really connect the Midlands / NW / NE. Re Drill the old tunnels (like at Farnworth) now National Grid has cabled the "new" tunnel. 

 

Bi modes to save on electrification is a crime, Isn't diesel to be phased out on our railways soon ? - NO MORE DIESELS

 

Long Term - Electrify the lot (OK - battery / hydrogen etc for lightly used lines)

 

Oh - and build new British designed & built nuclear power stations for base load alongside the green stuff. Don't forget we built the first commercial one at Windscale !!

 

I'm sure Greeta would agree - we've stolen her future you see - HOW DARE WE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

  • Like 6
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, APOLLO said:

 

Oh - and build new British designed & built nuclear power stations for base load alongside the green stuff. Don't forget we built the first commercial one at Windscale !!

 

Brit15

Blimey.

A British designed and built nuclear facility fills me with dread.

Windscale/Sellafield was an environmental disaster, much of which was hushed up at the time.

Most of the surrounding area got irradiated by unintended radioactive leakage from the place.

 

Another British designed one. No No No.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

One thing to remember on projects like this is that the "price" is not necessarily what it costs Government.

 

Most of the money spent out will go round the economy again in the form of tax income. So the net cost , if any, is far less. This effect is not as good as it was as we now have less manufacturing capacity in this country. So some of that spend will go abroad which would not have been the case 50 years ago.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

We built good ones after Windscale !!

 

A bit off topic but this is an interesting vid regarding Windscale.

 

 

AS we go "all electric" as fossil fuels are phased out, what else have we for base load for our ever increasing railway / road (car) electrification ?

 

Brit15

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Blimey.

A British designed and built nuclear facility fills me with dread.

Windscale/Sellafield was an environmental disaster, much of which was hushed up at the time.

Most of the surrounding area got irradiated by unintended radioactive leakage from the place.

 

Another British designed one. No No No.

Much the same logic gives rise to the negative reaction in many people's minds to the prospect of a British designed high speed railway line!

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...