HS2

[Pete the Elaner]

23 hours ago, melmerby said:

IMHO putting this graph in, especially with the inflated upper estimates, is when the cost of HS2 has nothing to do with TfL's plans.

Why include it unless it's another dig at HS2?

 

 

That timeline makes me wonder how much the cost has been raised by the opposition to the scheme & the legal battles which have been raised against it?

[corneliuslundie]

And is part simply inflation over that period?

Jonathan

[Pandora]

The Oakervee Report

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf

 

Read page 55 onwards and reach your own conclusion as to how HS2 costing are being managed / mismanaged

 

 

Read page 88 for the Oakervee conclusion, the project has been gold-plated and overspecified in design as a reason for inflated costs

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Pandora

[Richard E]

20 minutes ago, Pandora said:

The Oakervee Report

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf

 

Read page 55 onwards and reach your own conclusion as to how HS2 costing are being managed / mismanaged

 

 

Read page 88 for the Oakervee conclusion, the project has been gold-plated and overspecified in design as a reason for inflated costs

 

 

 

 

Which gives, using HS2 figures, a total cost far below that being regularly bandied about.

 

Quote

total for HS2 project: £80.7bn to £87.7bn

 

[Bernard Lamb]

52 minutes ago, Pandora said:

The Oakervee Report

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf

 

Read page 55 onwards and reach your own conclusion as to how HS2 costing are being managed / mismanaged

 

 

Read page 88 for the Oakervee conclusion, the project has been gold-plated and overspecified in design as a reason for inflated costs

 

 

 

Take a look at conclusions 33 and 34.

Far from being "overspecified" large sections are just left blank.

A report the other day suggests another £100m is needed for Euston but still leaves our the detailed design aspect.

As I have said before you get a figure that will be accepted by the government and then once work starts you fine tune it. Or make major changes depending on the circumstances.

You can take sections at random from any report to fit your own agenda.

Bernard

[corneliuslundie]

And in any case these days you have to build in so much "contingency" to your estimates to satisfy the Treasury that any figure quoted will always be miles from reality.

And a question: does that graph included earlier show costs at constant prices or does it take account of inflation? Even with only 2% inflation, over 15 years that makes a complete mess of any initial figures unless it is taken into account. Even five years means over a 10% increase. Delay the job and the cost automatically goes up. (that is the cost in £, not the real "cost" as everything else will have increased in price as well).

Jonathan

 

[GoingUnderground]

On 06/06/2021 at 21:47, Pete the Elaner said:

 

That timeline makes me wonder how much the cost has been raised by the opposition to the scheme & the legal battles which have been raised against it?

The cost will have been raised quite substantially just by the need to put so much in tunnel. You wouldn't get motorways being put in tunnels even in the age of electric cars just for the sake of keeping the countryside unsullied.

 

Having lived next to the London end of the West Coast main line for many years, the noise and aesthetic arguments for burying HS2 just doesn't hold water IMHO. and a double track railway line, even with OHLE portals is far less visually intrusive than a 6 lane motorway.

[Mark Saunders]

1 minute ago, GoingUnderground said:

The cost will have been raised quite substantially just by the need to put so much in tunnel. You wouldn't get motorways being put in tunnels even in the age of electric cars just for the sake of keeping the countryside unsullied.

 

Having lived next to the London end of the West Coast main line for many years, the noise and aesthetic arguments for burying HS2 just doesn't hold water IMHO. and a double track railway line, even with OHLE portals is far less visually intrusive than a 6 lane motorway.

It’s the British obsession with property prices and an uninterrupted South facing view!

 

[melmerby]

16 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

 

 

Having lived next to the London end of the West Coast main line for many years, the noise and aesthetic arguments for burying HS2 just doesn't hold water IMHO. and a double track railway line, even with OHLE portals is far less visually intrusive than a 6 lane motorway.

Motorways are also noisier.

I live some miles from the M42 but when the wind is in the "right"direction you can hear the continuous roar of the traffic.

I wouldn't want to live within sight of it.

[Edwin_m]

35 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

The cost will have been raised quite substantially just by the need to put so much in tunnel. You wouldn't get motorways being put in tunnels even in the age of electric cars just for the sake of keeping the countryside unsullied.

You do, but only in very exceptional circumstances such as Stonehenge (not a motorway, but same principle).  

[GoingUnderground]

20 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

You do, but only in very exceptional circumstances such as Stonehenge (not a motorway, but same principle).  

The damage was done when the A303 was revived as a major route in the 1930s and a trunk route in the 1950s.

 

The latest plans for the Stonehenge tunnel are for a 1.8 mile stretch, which is significantly less than the "environmental" tunnelling for HS2, and many would prefer that the A303 was diverted away from the Stonehenge area completely.

Edited June 8, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[Northmoor]

17 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

The damage was done when the A303 was revived as a major route in the 1930s and a trunk route in the 1950s.

 

The latest plans for the Stonehenge tunnel are for a 1.8 mile stretch, which is significantly less than the "environmental" tunnelling for HS2, and many would prefer that the A303 was diverted away from the Stonehenge area completely.

Don't get me started on the Stonehenge A303 tunnelling as I'll take the subject well off topic.  Suffice to say I can think of several million things more worthy of my taxes to be spent on than that English Heritage vanity project.

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Take a look at conclusions 33 and 34.

Far from being "overspecified" large sections are just left blank.

A report the other day suggests another £100m is needed for Euston but still leaves our the detailed design aspect.

As I have said before you get a figure that will be accepted by the government and then once work starts you fine tune it. Or make major changes depending on the circumstances.

You can take sections at random from any report to fit your own agenda.

Bernard

 

That's the short version.

The longer version is this:

Engineers: "it will cost £120 billion for the whole project & this is a detailed estimate, but we'll tell management £150 billion because we know they'll cut it."

Management: "We can't quote that. We'll have to trim it to below "£100 billion. We'll quote £90 billion"

Government: "£90 billion?..we've got a cheaper offer"

Management: "Ok, £80 billion, but we'll make no money from it"

So the media gets the figure of £80 billion...but we've seen earlier that the accurate estimate is already 50% more, so the project inevitably goes over budget.

 

It is not even possible to sue the company after it goes over budget. They would either go bankrupt or get the expense back from somewhere...by adding it to the contract!

If they did go bankrupt & another contractor employed to finish the work, they would probably quote £60 billion for doing the unfinished £40 billion because there are no other alternatives, so you may as well just stay with the original contract.

 

It all sounds a bit twisted doesn't it?

 

[Mark Saunders]

Another British thing knowing the price of everything and value of nothing!

 

It seems to apply  to those who claim that it is not needed  or they will not use it or there’s nothing wrong with the one you’ve got!

[Ron Ron Ron]

A lot of money is being spent around the edges of HS2.

How much for simulators like this one, used to teach apprentices how to operate a digger?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I bet electrically powered heavy plant, such as this crane, don't come cheap either.....

 

(note the power cable...)

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Northmoor]

I would guess it's the order of (at least) £1000/day to hire that crane and probably £50/hr for the operator.

I wouldn't like to guess how fast the electric meter goes round though.

[GoingUnderground]

5 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

It’s the British obsession with property prices and an uninterrupted South facing view!

 

I think that I'd reword that slightly to "It's the obsession of owners over the value of their property and having an uninterrupted view." Those who have to rent might have a rather different opinion. Just asks the local folk in Cornwall who can't afford to buy because the second home buyers are jacking up the prices to levels that they can't afford, and turning some places into near ghost towns out of season in the process.

[GoingUnderground]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

A lot of money is being spent around the edges of HS2.

How much for simulators like this one, used to teach apprentices how to operate a digger?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

It must be a cost effective way to teach the trainees or they wouldn't do it. And it avoids any nasty and expensive accidents during training, and keeping a expensive digger tied up whilst the guy learns. Besides it will be a transferable skill for the next construction project, so laying all the cost at HS2's door as this implies, is, IMHO, just plain wrong..

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

A lot of money is being spent around the edges of HS2.

How much for simulators like this one, used to teach apprentices how to operate a digger?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

It's three screens and some controls, it's not an a380 simulator.

 

And this beats digging lots of holes in a real location just to fill them back in for no reason other than practice.  He's also less likely to go through a real pipe or cable whilst doing this, no animals harmed and no diggers damaged.

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I bet electrically powered heavy plant, such as this crane, don't come cheap either.....

 

(note the power cable...)

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

..

It's the future, how else will a crane work, or an excavator when fossil fuel engines are banned.

 

We have to lead the way somewhere, we cannot simply wait till 2035 and magically see all plant in the UK miraculously become electric.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

 Just asks the local folk in Cornwall anywhere "desirable" who can't afford to buy because the second home buyers are jacking up the prices to levels that they can't afford, and turning some places into near ghost towns out of season in the process.

I think that is more correct.

[Ron Ron Ron]

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It's the future, how else will a crane work, or an excavator when fossil fuel engines are banned.

 

We have to lead the way somewhere, we cannot simply wait till 2035 and magically see all plant in the UK miraculously become electric.

 

I totally agree.

There are a number of examples of electric and hybrid powered machines being employed on the HS2 project.

The PR is full of it.

PR BS aside, it's all good.

The contractors love to wave their "green credentials" to show them off though, ....understandable I suppose.

I've no idea if HS2 specify, or set the contractors targets or suchlike, in the contract awards, requiring them to introduce new, greener tech?

Still, I imagine there's a price to be paid and this new equipment is likely to be increasing the cost of the bids.

 

.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Edwin_m]

17 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I totally agree.

There are a number of examples of electric and hybrid powered machines being employed on the HS2 project.

The PR is full of it.

PR BS aside, it's all good.

The contractors love to wave their "green credentials" to show them off though, ....understandable I suppose.

I've no idea if HS2 specify, or set the contractors targets or suchlike, in the contract awards, requiring them to introduce new, greener tech?

Still, I imagine there's a price to be paid and this new equipment is likely to be increasing the cost of the bids.

 

.

No real reason why electric plant should be more expensive to hire than diesel, other than that it hasn't yet attained economies of scale in production.  And going by electric cars I imagine it would be cheaper to operate.  There would be some extra cost to provide the power supply, but in a project like this it may be bringing forward part of the electrical work ultimately needed to supply the station.   

[jamie92208]

4 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I bet electrically powered heavy plant, such as this crane, don't come cheap either.....

 

(note the power cable...)

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

..

There is a long history of electrically  powered heavy plant.  Walking draglines  were often electric. The preserved one near Leeds dates, I think from the 1940's. As it had been built in the US it was 60 Hz  and used to have it's own special substation that it would pick up and shift when it ran out of lead.  When the St Aidans site flooded in the 80's it was a race against time to walk it and it's substation to dry land ahead of the flood waters.

 

Jamie

Edited June 8, 2021 by jamie92208