HS2: Have we passed the point of no return?

[dangie]

For those who think that the plug won't be pulled from HS2 no matter how much money has been spent and how far advanced its construction is, only need to Google TSR2 jet fighter.

 

[LLivery]

Phase 1 won't be cancelled. Absolutely no chance. The political fallout if all of Phase 2 gets canned would be interesting to say the least.

I think you'll see the Yorkshire branch quietly become "phase 3" and then it'll be "paused" with media attention. You'll get cheers from some and anger from others. I don't think any government will have the bottle to axe the Manchester route. Continuing with the Manchester route can avoid a forgotten north outcry, while still saying the substantial money saved from not building the Yorkshire branch will be invested in the Midlands and North (even if it isn't).

Though if we do get an economic slowdown, it's widely considered that the best response is for the government to provide an economic stimulus by spending on infrastructure. Which would be a reason to keep going rather than cancel it.

We will get an economic slowdown, it's inevitable, Brexit or non-Brexit related. Western economic downturns happen once a decade and some signs are indicating it'll be this year. Also, we have a Tory government; the only way they believe you can stimulate the economy with infra is by selling it off to the most incompetent bidder.

 

[Bevan Price]

I don't think it will be cancelled - but the tory minority government elected at the next general election will negotiate "an agreed phasing" to spread the cost over several extra years, delaying the completion date by - maybe - 5 or so years. As others say, the Leeds branch will probably be "postponed indefinitely" - or "until the economy recovers from the
post-Brexit near collapse". They may also attempt to reduce costs by reducing the number of tunnels, and modifying parts of the route to give more "ground level" sections.

 

[Harbornite]

A stupid idea 10 years ago.
Scrap it now

A very convincing and well made point, you've actually made my change my mind regarding the whole thing.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

The two worst things they could do to the project have already been discussed in Westminster, cost cutting by slowing the line down (if its any slower than the current 125mph or even the same it'd be a travesty) or cutting the route.
For me it must be built to HS1 standards or better, with in cab signalling and a minimum of 300kph (186mph) line running speed
And the rolling stock must be capable of these speeds, and fitted with only in cab signalling to stop the penny pinchers who might decide yes these trains can go to Leeds but on the existing network!
Phase 1 will happen, 2 is dicey and I think 3 will not happen however much its needed more than phase 1

 

[DPWH]

For those who think that the plug won't be pulled from HS2 no matter how much money has been spent and how far advanced its construction is, only need to Google TSR2 jet fighter.

I think there's a big difference in scope between defence procurement and national infrastructure projects.

 

[higthomas]

Well the gambler's fallacy doesn't apply here. That concept assumes that past bets are investments and indicators of the future when in fact there are a succession of random events. HS2 has a positive usiness case that has improved in its own right since 2009 through traffic growth alone. Add to that the fact that most of the budgeted capital spent to date makes the business case more positive, so cancelling would be even less justified (on a pure economic basis) when the benefits remain the same.

Don't you mean the sunk cost fallacy?

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/

Yes, of course I did thank you. As I might try and call it, the other gamber's fallacy.

 

[underbank]

And the rolling stock must be capable of these speeds, and fitted with only in cab signalling to stop the penny pinchers who might decide yes these trains can go to Leeds but on the existing network!

But what about North of Manchester and Leeds when back on the existing main lines up to Scotland? It wouldn't be acceptable for people from the North to have to change trains at an intermediary station to benefit from the fast trains on the new HS2 line. Those travelling to/from Scotland aren't going to be happy with a choice of having to change at an intermediary station (inconvenience and time lost) or having to use existing 125 mph trains if they want a direct route (which would be no faster than today).

 

[dangie]

For those who think that the plug won't be pulled from HS2 no matter how much money has been spent and how far advanced its construction is, only need to Google TSR2 jet fighter.

I think there's a big difference in scope between defence procurement and national infrastructure projects.

I agree. Defence of the country is far more important than getting from A to B ten minutes quicker. Didn't stop the new government scrapping the project though.

 

[Journeyman]

with Grayling’s position looking less and less secure, there may need to be a new SoS who presumably will need to be convinced of the merits of HS2.

I know the treasury are far more important in these decisions.

However, I was wondering if the amount spent already and the amount which would need to be spent of the project was cancelled me that it is now effectively impossible to cancel st least to Birmingham.

Edinburgh Trams came close to being halted on a number of occasions, even after all the vehicles had been delivered and almost all of the infrastructure completed. It all got caught up in some horrific local politics, with some nationalists branding it a "unionist" project! It was extraordinarily depressing to see, and although the trams have proved successful and are highly likely to make it to Leith in the next few years, there are still people unfeasibly angry about them. You hear less about it now, but there's at least a few people in Edinburgh who would gleefully rip the whole lot up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Edinburgh Trams came close to being halted on a number of occasions, even after all the vehicles had been delivered and almost all of the infrastructure completed. It all got caught up in some horrific local politics, with some nationalists branding it a "unionist" project! It was extraordinarily depressing to see, and although the trams have proved successful and are highly likely to make it to Leith in the next few years, there are still people unfeasibly angry about them. You hear less about it now, but there's at least a few people in Edinburgh who would gleefully rip the whole lot up.

The bad feeling is understandable and is because of the appalling way the project was managed and delivered, not, mostly, because of a simple dislike of trams.

 

[Journeyman]

The bad feeling is understandable and is because of the appalling way the project was managed and delivered, not, mostly, because of a simple dislike of trams.

Maybe, but you'd be surprised. I worked on the tram that was exhibited in Princes Street in 2010, and the ignorant opinions spouted at me were absolutely appalling (part of my job was trying to counter them). You'd think trams were capable of triggering the Apocalypse, so hateful were some people.

Plenty of projects have run into similar problems - the Jubilee Line Extension cost twice as much as it was meant to and was delayed by 18 months, but no-one seemed to bat an eyelid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plenty of projects have run into similar problems - the Jubilee Line Extension cost twice as much as it was meant to and was delayed by 18 months, but no-one seemed to bat an eyelid.

The JLE, being underground, didn't blight the high street of a major city (and make a hash of its popular and well-run bus network that uses that street as its core) for several years.

 

[Journeyman]

The JLE, being underground, didn't blight the high street of a major city (and make a hash of its popular and well-run bus network that uses that street as its core) for several years.

Thankfully most people seem to have accepted that's well in the past now.

 

[quantinghome]

It seems strange to me that folk here a saying Phase 2 is the most obvious part at risk when this part has the best business case. Phase 1 on its own is significantly less value for money. And that's not considering the political consequences of cancelling significant investment in the North.

I remember back when HS1 was about to start construction. That was split into two phases as well and many people said the second phase would never be built.

 

[camflyer]

For those who think that the plug won't be pulled from HS2 no matter how much money has been spent and how far advanced its construction is, only need to Google TSR2 jet fighter.

It's easy to hide a few jet fighters. Having half completed bridges, stations and tracks across the countryside would be a very visible and embarrassing.

 

[AM9]

It's easy to hide a few jet fighters. Having half completed bridges, stations and tracks across the countryside would be a very visible and embarrassing.

Didn't they get sent to Shoeburyness to be used for target practice?

 

[Hadders]

Plenty of projects have run into similar problems - the Jubilee Line Extension cost twice as much as it was meant to and was delayed by 18 months, but no-one seemed to bat an eyelid.

I can assure you that it most certainly was noticed at the time. Appalling publicity at the cost over runs and delays (wasn’t it 3 years in the end?). They only just got it finished in time for the opening of the Dome as well and there were all sorts of contingencies in place in case that didn’t happen.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 1975 Channel Tunnel project was a relevant case.
It was then a public project, and at the point the main boring was due to start BR (no less) put about that the link to London would need a new tunnel under Croydon.
The government panicked (or used it as an excuse) and pulled the plug on the whole project.
It would also have cancelled Concorde as well, but discovered it had insisted on a non-cancellation clause to prevent the French from cancelling it.
But the nation's finances were in a worse way then than they are now (at least pre-Brexit).
Luckily the 1987 scheme was a much better project (and the private sector footed most of the bill).

The possibility of unfinished railway infrastructure around Birmingham has echoes of 1850, where the viaduct at Bordesley between the GWR and LNWR is still there crumbling gently after 169 years.
The aim was to get the GWR into Curzon Street, but by then the LNWR had decided to build New St so the GWR built Snow Hill instead, and the connection was never used.

 

[duffield]

So, given it appears we have not reached that point yet, at what point would the 'sunk cost fallacy' no longer apply, i.e. at what point what there be essentially no significant savings from cancellation? 1/2/3 years from now? Longer?

 

[quantinghome]

So, given it appears we have not reached that point yet, at what point would the 'sunk cost fallacy' no longer apply, i.e. at what point what there be essentially no significant savings from cancellation? 1/2/3 years from now? Longer?

Given the costs of either providing the same capacity by alternative means, or adopting a 'do nothing' transport strategy and foregoing the economic benefits of better rail links, we passed the 'no significant savings' point several years ago. Essentially, when a new high speed rail link was determined to be the best way of providing significant north-south rail capacity.

Looking purely at the construction costs, the point of no return will come (or may have already been reached) when a number large contracts have been signed and it will be costly to back out of them.

But all this is entirely hypothetical. The act authorising the work has passed into UK law. What would be needed to cancel it legally? Possibly another act of parliament (anyone able to confirm?)

More importantly, there is no political incentive to stop the work. It's a tiny fraction of overall government spending. If a future government was looking to make cuts to the transport budget, it would be far less hassle to simply delay other expensive and controversial projects that aren't yet under construction (for example Stonehenge tunnel, lower Thames Crossing, Transpennine road tunnel). There is no significant political impetus to stop the project. All the main parties support it, and most of the blocks within those parties as well, so even if the Tories or Labour were to see a more significant split than at present, the new parties would still support it. Perhaps the ERG would not be in favour, but then they would be under massive pressure to show some investment in the Midlands and North and cancelling HS2 would completely go against that.

 

[jfowkes]

Perhaps the ERG would not be in favour, but then they would be under massive pressure to show some investment in the Midlands and North and cancelling HS2 would completely go against that.

This assumes that enough people are convinced that HS2 will benefit the Midlands and the North. There's a lot of people who think that HS2 will be neutral or negative. Further, they see HS2 as draining money from the rail budget or as being a pot of money that could be put into the rail budget.

I think cancelling HS2 could be easily sold (politically) as a benefit to the Midlands/North.

 

[camflyer]

This assumes that enough people are convinced that HS2 will benefit the Midlands and the North. There's a lot of people who think that HS2 will be neutral or negative. Further, they see HS2 as draining money from the rail budget or as being a pot of money that could be put into the rail budget.

I think cancelling HS2 could be easily sold (politically) as a benefit to the Midlands/North.

It would be hard to sell it as a benefit if the money wasn't going to be spent elsewhere and was just going to balance the Treasury's books. I'm sure the tens of thousands of people employed in the supply chain wouldn't treat cancellation as a benefit either.

Typically when the Treasury want to spend less on X it isn't so that it can spent more on Y. It's to avoid spending the money in the first place. There have been some recent reports that the Treasury wants HMS Prince of Wales, the second of the new carriers, to be mothballed. On wag in the MOD said that "The Treasury has sunk more of Her Majesty's ships than any foreign navy."

 

[underbank]

It would be hard to sell it as a benefit if the money wasn't going to be spent elsewhere

They could make a lot of people happy in "Northern-land" by spending just a fraction of the HS2 money on a new fleet of DMUs to make the trains longer, get rid of the antiquated rolling stock and provide more regular services.

 

[squizzler]

I am puzzled by people's suggestion (assuming such a suggestion has seriously been made) that a committed project of national importance would be cancelled. Am I correct in assuming this is a result in the difficulties faced by California's High Speed programme?

If the latter, with the current disfunction of the US government (and California especially - thanks to their referendum system of government, never works, that!*) in mind I see no desire in aping their decision making process. Although California, to be fair, does have some nuggets of enlightenment to be mined, this is not one of them.

* Well maybe in Switzerland?

 

[6Gman]

I agree. Defence of the country is far more important than getting from A to B ten minutes quicker. Didn't stop the new government scrapping the project though.

I see this "ten minutes quicker" quoted from time to time. Between which two HS2 stations is the saving ten minutes?

 

[6Gman]

They could make a lot of people happy in "Northern-land" by spending just a fraction of the HS2 money on a new fleet of DMUs to make the trains longer, get rid of the antiquated rolling stock and provide more regular services.

Much of which is already happening anyway ... independently of HS2.

 

[jfowkes]

I am puzzled by people's suggestion (assuming such a suggestion has seriously been made) that a committed project of national importance would be cancelled. Am I correct in assuming this is a result in the difficulties faced by California's High Speed programme?

HS2 isn't of national importance. By which I mean many people in the nation don't consider it important. That makes it an easy target for spending cuts. Even if they don't make sense. Even if it would actually cost more. Even if it actually made everything worse. HS2 is seen as an expensive white elephant and I don't think it would take much of a change in the political or economic winds to shaft it.

The people on here saying HS2 won't be cancelled because it's too important or the economics don't make sense sound a bit like the people who said brexit wouldn't happen before the referendum.

I should state here that I personally support HS2 and understand the arguments for it.

 

[yorkie]

They could make a lot of people happy in "Northern-land" by spending just a fraction of the HS2 money on a new fleet of DMUs to make the trains longer, get rid of the antiquated rolling stock and provide more regular services.

Just a reminder this thread is to discuss whether or not we have "passed the point of no return", and is not to post speculative ideas nor post reasons against HS2.

If anyone wishes to make suggestions on what could be done if HS2 is scrapped, please use this thread instead: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-if-hs2-is-scrapped.176184/

If anyone wishes to post reasons why they think HS2 should be scrapped, please use this thread instead: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-are-people-opposed-to-hs2-and-other-hs2-discussion.177112/

 

[Mathew S]

The act authorising the work has passed into UK law. What would be needed to cancel it legally? Possibly another act of parliament (anyone able to confirm?)

Correct. An act of parliament can only be overturned by another act of parliament (with the possible exception of if a court were to rule that act was unlawful in some way such as non-compliance with ECHR, but I can't see that applying in the case of HS2).