HS2

[jjb1970]

7 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I need to admit that I was expecting howls of laughter at my previous post.

What I find worrying it that contractors evidently are not trusted to obey the terms of their contract, so everything has to be checked, double checked ad nauseum.

Interesting, getting back to the costs quoted above, am I right in thinking that the figures in the June 2023 report are considerably lower than the figures touted by the media?

Jonathan 

 

There's trust and there's trust. A successful program will most likely have an excellent relationship between all parties but there will still be audits and compliance verification processes. Even in a good relationship there will be differences in opinion and interpretation of what is acceptable, contract clauses etc.

 

And perhaps more importantly, HS2 has legal duties and responsibilities with which it needs to be able to demonstrate compliance.

[corneliuslundie]

"HS2 should go private imo."

But that still leaves all the logistics of dealing with bureaucracy, bats, utilities etc. Though hopefully those specifying the project might actually know what they are doing and only need to do it once. That still probably means a lead time of several years before you need any shovels though. The bats will always win.

Jonathan

[jamie92208]

Whilst the political wtangling goes on lots of very impressive engineering is still progressing.  Here is the latest video of the Colne Valley viaduct. 

 

Fabulous to see. I like that the row of parked segments alhave their safety rails installed on opposite sides depend g on which end of the V pier they are headed to. 

 

Jamie

[Ron Ron Ron]

I might be wrong, but looking at the progress on the Colne Valley viaduct and comparing it with Google Maps, I estimate the half way point has been reached.

 

.

[62613]

16 hours ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I would imagine in excess of £20bn so far as a lot of the civil work for Phase 1 is well advanced and based on a £90bn cost for the project, that’s likely to be about £30-40bn in total. The various TBMs won’t come cheap and property costs will be a few £bn. Design fees are, we know, well over £100m for Euston alone as they wrote that sum off when starting again with that station.

 

21 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

According to this report to Parliament in June this year,

 

£22.5bn has been spent on phase 1

£0.9bn has been spent on phase 2a

£0.7bn has been spent on phase 2b

£0.7bn has been spent on east Mids link

 

giving a total of £24.7bn.

 

current rate of spend (and therefore the order of savings that would result in later years of phase 2 was binned) is £5bn per year.

 

Phase 1 is predicted to outturn at £40-45bn.

Phase 2a is estimated as up to £7bn

Phase 2b is estimated as up to £19bn

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hs2-6-monthly-report-to-parliament-june-2023

I take it that £22.5bn is over the total length of the project so far, i.e. about 13 years, with most going out over the last four or five? So let's say £3bn or £4bn a year at the moment; it's chicken feed really.

[Edwin_m]

15 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I need to admit that I was expecting howls of laughter at my previous post.

What I find worrying it that contractors evidently are not trusted to obey the terms of their contract, so everything has to be checked, double checked ad nauseum.

Interesting, getting back to the costs quoted above, am I right in thinking that the figures in the June 2023 report are considerably lower than the figures touted by the media?

Jonathan 

One of the main causes of the Carmont derailment was the drainage contractor not building what was designed, and Network Rail not checking.  

Edited October 2, 2023 by Edwin_m

[jjb1970]

My job used to be design verification as a design approval surveyor at Lloyd's Register, with the best will in the world and with no question about motives people do make mistakes and verification processes do pick up mistakes, non-conformities and things which shouldn't happen even with high quality and highly professional organizations. Which is why verification is important.

[62613]

11 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Kind of makes you wonder where the problem lies…

 

Contractors work to briefs

Briefs are made by civil servants with variable railway & commercial knowledge

Ministers guide civil servants based on their parties policies during that term of office.

Decisions are often based on cost and time.

No comeback on bad decisions

 

in the real world,..

Contractors work to briefs.

Briefs are made by teamshired for their skill in the industry and sector they work.

Management make career decisions based on their team advice and in accordance with the shareholders wishes.

Decisions are made in roi and goals.

Heavy comeback on bad decisions.

 

Which one of the two built the railways, saved the country through two world wars and advanced the countries economic performance across the globe for 100 years ?

 

HS2 should go private imo.

Being as in both world wars, the state was run by the government, I'm not sure what you're on about, there!

[adb968008]

9 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Being as in both world wars, the state was run by the government, I'm not sure what you're on about, there!

The government didnt build those railways they took advantage in the wars now did they ?

 

indeed in ability to pay for the services rendered, is ultimately what leads us where we are today.

 

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by adb968008

[62613]

2 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The government didnt build those railways they took advantage in the wars now did they ?

The point I was trying to make was that in both world wars, no matter who or what did what beforehand, the government ran the state, in the second world war in a very socialist manner; conscription, rationing, direction of resources, direction of labour, etc.

So to imply that private enterprise won the wars is wrong. Neither would private enterprise survive for very long without support from, and cooperation with, government 

[adb968008]

14 minutes ago, 62613 said:

The point I was trying to make was that in both world wars, no matter who or what did what beforehand, the government ran the state, in the second world war in a very socialist manner; conscription, rationing, direction of resources, direction of labour, etc.

So to imply that private enterprise won the wars is wrong. Neither would private enterprise survive for very long without support from, and cooperation with, government 

still disagree, the railways in 1914, and in 1939 were staffed by hundreds of thousands.

They didnt all just goto the front, they remained in their day jobs… they were professionals doing what they were trained to do.

 

ok that had to adjust due to wartime demands.. but the LMS in 1939 was still the LMS in 1945, just rundown and abused by the needs of the state, but they were essentially career railwaymen.

 

its similarities to today, indeed theres a huge amount of frustration I see amongst railwaymen, who simply are not being allowed to what best needs of training for their job requires due to interference at a higher, less understanding dft level.

…

in oneline.. imo Governments shouldnt run railways… 

 

Indeed I dont think governments should be running anything long term thats designed to be a commercial project. as the needs of the enterprise is longer and different to the needs of politicians.

 

What they should do, is provide visions, clear hurdles, and support projects, and by all means be an investor, shareholder, board member etc.l but let capitalism do its thing… thats why communism failed.

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by adb968008

[rockershovel]

I can promise you that contractors not fulfilling any aspect of their contract they think they can get away with, though not the problem it once was, is still commonplace. 

 

There is still the requirement of records which will be pored over ad infinitum when the inevitable liability claims start, not to mention the claims for insufficient pre-contract information. 

 

One thing I have found, being back in the UK civil engineering engineering world after many years away from it, is that the old problems with the "framework" contracts are still very much with us. British contractors,and clients for that matter simply aren't focused on DOING THE JOB FOR THE MONEY. 

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

9 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

still disagree, the railways in 1914, and in 1939 were staffed by hundreds of thousands.

They didnt all just goto the front, they remained in their day jobs… they were professionals doing what they were trained to do.

 

ok that had to adjust due to wartime demands.. but the LMS in 1939 was still the LMS in 1945, just rundown and abused by the needs of the state, but they were essentially career railwaymen.

 

its similarities to today, indeed theres a huge amount of frustration I see amongst railwaymen, who simply are not being allowed to what best needs of training for their job requires due to interference at a higher, less understanding dft level.

…

in oneline.. imo Governments shouldnt run railways… 

 

 

 

Financiers certainly shouldn't. 

[adb968008]

1 minute ago, rockershovel said:

Financiers certainly shouldn't. 

Thats why the ceo role exists… to separate the money from the business.

[rockershovel]

The problem is that Civil Servsnts are good servants but bad masters. Politicians may, or may not be the first, but are DEFINITELY the second. 

 

What we need is a French style system, by which the relevant department decides what is required, then instructs the Minister what it requires. The notion of politicians setting transport policy, say, is regarded as risible; how can they, who know nothing of the subject? It also means that the electoral consequences are of supreme unimportant, which IMHO is how it should be. If there is anything in our system which is an eminently disposable resource it is individual politicians. 

 

Instead of which, we sell things to the French. Thereby getting the worst of both worlds. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by rockershovel

[Not Jeremy]

8 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

still disagree, the railways in 1914, and in 1939 were staffed by hundreds of thousands.

They didnt all just goto the front, they remained in their day jobs… they were professionals doing what they were trained to do.

 

ok that had to adjust due to wartime demands.. but the LMS in 1939 was still the LMS in 1945, just rundown and abused by the needs of the state, but they were essentially career railwaymen.

 

its similarities to today, indeed theres a huge amount of frustration I see amongst railwaymen, who simply are not being allowed to what best needs of training for their job requires due to interference at a higher, less understanding dft level.

…

in oneline.. imo Governments shouldnt run railways… 

 

Indeed I dont think governments should be running anything long term, as the needs of the enterprise is longer and different to the needs of politicians.

 

What they should do, is provide visions, clear hurdles, and support projects, and by all means be an investor, shareholder, board member etc.l but let capitalism do its thing.

 

 

I'm not saying that you are saying this, but to be clear, none of the above is the same as having a "Nationalised" railway.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to see various things (re)Nationalised, Water, Power, The National Grid, The Royal Mail and yes, the Railways.

 

It feels hard not to blame DFT for nearly everything on the railway current scene, yet they have also done some good things, re-opening to Okehampton being a shining example, they didn't have to do that.

 

As ever, things are more complicated than they first appear, I guess.

 

Simon

[rockershovel]

5 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Thats why the ceo role exists… to separate the money from the business.

Except that in our system, the money is the business. 

[adb968008]

24 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

 

 

It feels hard not to blame DFT for nearly everything on the railway current scene, yet they have also done some good things, re-opening to Okehampton being a shining example, they didn't have to do that.

 

Why would a commercial enterprise be incapable of reaching the same decision ?

not forgetting it was a commercial enterprise which opened the original railway in the first place.

 

if the numbers stack up, any business would hit go, with government support (and if the government funded it the same way).

 

What may have been different would have been the absurdity of parallel running right past open stations, for want of signalling… a business may see better opportunity for cost than a decision between installing points and signals in Devon or building a new school In Essex.

indeed a commercial enterprise typically manage costs better and be more able to support itself, inhouse, than relying on all purpose DIY contractors.

 

its worth suggesting if government hadnt nationalised railways in 1948, Okehampton may not have closed at all, and better competition for freight to Cornwall may still exist.

A good example of this is airlines, especially the early days of budget airlines and reinvigourating old WW2 airfields.. many towns reaped considerable benefits… you know those £1 fares werent really £1… its just subsidized fares by a LA to get the ball rolling… and thats why you dont see them as much at now established locations…. Imagine if Ryanair was a wholly owned government project in 1999.. they would still be nothing flying now.

 

To me HS2… float it… ensure its got all political support and approvals. Let the govt take a stake, offer a part to institutions then offer the rest to the populace. I would go as far as saying construction companies vying for contracts need to take a stake.

if the institutions werent interested, well then thats a message that shouldnt be ignored.

 

Get the public on board, put the govt in the back seat. Let industry do its thing. It takes the £100bn burden off the government to something more managable.

 

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by adb968008

[melmerby]

7 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

Personally, I'd prefer to see various things (re)Nationalised, Water, Power, The National Grid, The Royal Mail and yes, the Railways.

They are nationalised in all but name.

 

The government owns the track, the stations and the rest of the infrastructure.

They also control (own) the actual services run on their railway and are operated under government awarded contract by private companies. (apart from operations like Lumo & Grand Central)

 

Some of the 'private' railway companies are also owned by the Government - TPE, Northern, LNER, SE trains, Scotrail, Transport for Wales and also freight operator DRS.

 

These days leasing & contracting out are normal in many countries, even for Government owned businesses

[adb968008]

7 minutes ago, melmerby said:

They are nationalised in all but name.

 

The government owns the track, the stations and the rest of the infrastructure.

They also control (own) the actual services run on their railway and are operated under government awarded contract by private companies. (apart from operations like Lumo & Grand Central)

 

Some of the 'private' railway companies are also owned by the Government - TPE, Northern, LNER, SE trains, Scotrail, Transport for Wales and also freight operator DRS.

 

These days leasing & contracting out are normal in many countries, even for Government owned businesses

Theres a big difference between Freight and Passenger operators though…

 

one seems to exist at an almost unnoticeable level of finesse and efficiency compared to the other… The approach to storage of assets during a downturn in demand is stark too… its almost as if Freight realises the true cost of standing up operations, and therefore doesnt just cast off to scrap assets on a whim, and splurge new on the tax payers dime… Leasing companies know how to maximise benefit and recognise opportunities too… I doubt the mk5’s will sit around long.. someones going to own that.. be it CAF or a foreign operator.

Edited October 2, 2023 by adb968008

[Not Jeremy]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

They are nationalised in all but name.

 

The government owns the track, the stations and the rest of the infrastructure.

They also control (own) the actual services run on their railway and are operated under government awarded contract by private companies. (apart from operations like Lumo & Grand Central)

 

Some of the 'private' railway companies are also owned by the Government - TPE, Northern, LNER, SE trains, Scotrail, Transport for Wales and also freight operator DRS.

 

These days leasing & contracting out are normal in many countries, even for Government owned businesses

Ah yes, there is a different name for the current situation, and I do not believe that it is “nationalised”…..

[phil gollin]

.

 

Please ignore this reply if you want.

 

I worked on the CTRL (now HS1 😆 )  I was laid off when section 2 was cancelled but reinstated when it was reinstated.

 

I worked for the main contractor, NOT the client (who liased with Whitehall).  The general understanding (simplistic) was that CTRL was a job creation sheme to (slightly) offset the vast imbalance in tax income versus tax spend between the "south" - especially London - and the "North".   The whole project was set up with the main contractor being made up of management and personnel from specialist contractors, the main one being from the petrochemical/heavy engineering side.  Their way of "managing" might be summerised as "managing by money", where errors and delays MIGHT be alleviated, to a certain extent, by judically spending extra money.  This "works" in Petrochem mostly because the projects make money - it did not work on CTRL.

 

CTRL came in extremely over the original budget and very late, it was very obvious that "managing with money" didn't work for transport projects.

 

UNFORTUNATELY HS2 was set up with, basically, the same sort of contractors and the same mistakes SEEM to be re-occurring.

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Correct.

One section of it is to provide local walkers and cyclists with a new route to be able to visit Waddesdon Manor without having to use the A41. The A41 is aslo having a bit of an upgrade in the area.

I would like to see a figure, extracted from the total, for the actual net cost of building the railway.

Bernard

I don't know the figure but I know that various of the footpath fencing work in that general area was done incorrectly and another contractor had to then rerect a new footpath fence in the right place.  I also know that site management of fencing work can be best described as mis-management with jobs being cancelled at short notice and the contractor having to be compensated for the cost of hired machinery he had got to delivered to site ready for the scheduled dates - and those costs alone run into four figures for a week's work cancelled.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

I'm not saying that you are saying this, but to be clear, none of the above is the same as having a "Nationalised" railway.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to see various things (re)Nationalised, Water, Power, The National Grid, The Royal Mail and yes, the Railways.

 

It feels hard not to blame DFT for nearly everything on the railway current scene, yet they have also done some good things, re-opening to Okehampton being a shining example, they didn't have to do that.

 

As ever, things are more complicated than they first appear, I guess.

 

Simon

Interesting views Simon.  I worked for the nationalise railway for most of my railway career and it was run by railway people who kept Govt at arms lenmgeth.  the 'railways' section in the Ministry of Transport/Dept of Transport was little more than one man and a dog.  And most of the time the impression was that the man was good at keeping The treasury and politicians under control although occasinally the dog had to be let loose in their direction to put the frighteners on them.

 

Like most railway managers I saw privatisation as some sort of political lunacy but I have to say that many things which came with the way it was done were good - and actually better than what had gone before.  Freight operatoirs in particular (until TfL have got involved in more recent years) were given protection of their train paths by real contracts - not the whim of an indvidual train planner or manager (various, at levels various) who knew little about freight and understood even less (although TfL is far. far, worse in that respect and blatantly ignores capacity sharing agreements).

 

As de-nationalisation got underway I found myself working for a GoCo (govt owned company) which respomnd directly to the man and his dog at Marsham St.  Direction was clear, the man was good and didn't try to interfere with running of the company or its trains; the dog remained in the kennel).

 

Contrast that with now - Where the Dept of railways is ahuge mass of experts (whom the dog would probably have savaged one hopes) who know more than everyine ekse in the industry and who run teh railways by dictat and stupidity.  Nationalise that lot and the residents of those gilded towers, along with their pea-brained political puppets, are no way going to let go.  And regrettably there aren't nowadays many senior railway managers who are prepared to tell them where to go and how ro get there in the way that BR senior managers did (although usually very politely).

 

What we ci urreently have is not good - i think the franchised passenger railway was better but the (un)Civil Servants were too useless at handling it so shot it to bits.  But i very much truly doubt if the 'great british railways' lark - should it ever actually get off the ground - will be any better and I wouldn't be surprised that if it's even worse.

 

Back to HS 2  where, yet again, ignorant politicians lost its true purpose even if they understood it in the first place

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

Ah yes, there is a different name for the current situation, and I do not believe that it is “nationalised”…..

 

The term is "Fig Leaf", one designed to avoid political embarrassment for the instigators of privatisation at its failure to thrive in the longer term.

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Dunsignalling