HSR in the UK

[Shrop]

Almost 20 years ago, in 2005, consideration was being given to high speed rail developments in the UK and in China. In both countries one of the proposals was Maglev, the Chinese were pleased with the success of their 430kph link from Shanghai to Pudong airport and gave much consideration to using this technology from Shanghai to Beijing. The CEO of “500kmh”, the Maglev proposal for the UK, rode the Shanghai Maglev with the then Shadow Chancellor George Osborne who expressed much enthusiasm, although back in the UK it met with a lot of scepticism, scorn and opposition from the heavy rail industry. However, any thoughts of Maglev were scuppered by the fatal accident on the Transrapid test track in Germany in 2006, and the focus on to heavy rail in both countries was secured.

But this is just a bit of background, the intention is not to focus on Maglev, it is to compare what has happened in the two countries since. The UK went with the Greengauge21 proposal which evolved into HS2, and we all know the sorry story of how this has developed. The majority of it has been killed off, the only bit that remains is yet another project to serve London, and it has completely failed in its objective of levelling up The North. Some might justify prioritising HS2 Phase 1 by saying that London to Birmingham has more passengers than any pairs of cities further north, but that it exactly the point of levelling up – it’s NOT about yet more benefits to the south.

Meanwhile HS2 has lost its offering of a 70 minute journey time saving between Birmingham and Leeds (whilst also benefitting the East Midlands and Sheffield), what remains is offering a time saving of under 30 minutes between London and Birmingham, with this southern section costing far, far more per mile, and benefitting nowhere in between. And the opening of the remnants of this decimated project is still many years into the future.

Then there is China. Their Shanghai to Beijing route was has been open to passengers since 2011, having taken less time to build their entire 809 mile route, than HS2’s relatively tiny route length will take to complete even from now. The journey time for this 809 mile route is the same as the fastest London to Glasgow or Edinburgh trains, despite being over TWICE the distance, trains are just as frequent, and of course these London to Scotland journey times will still take almost as long after HS2 has opened.

Okay, we can excuse the UK all we like, but it does seem somewhat unsatisfactory for us as the country that pioneered railway development. Have we, as the UK culture, simply lost interest in rail development, or have we just lost capability? Are people on this forum happy to sit back and accept that rail funding keeps getting diverted to roads? Maybe you think my assessment of all this is wrong?

 

[PGAT]

HS2 has primarily been cut back due to ballooning costs and they are less problematic in China as labour costs are lower and less environmental considerations mean they get to save a bit of money by laying track through a forest rather than tunnelling under it. I suppose we are less capable at building railways as a sacrifice for better quality of life and being more environmentally responsible

 

[JonathanH]

Are people on this forum happy to sit back and accept that rail funding keeps getting diverted to roads?

Rail funding isn't getting diverted to roads. It is getting diverted to try to keep the country solvent.

Have we, as the UK culture, simply lost interest in rail development, or have we just lost capability?

There simply isn't any money for grandiose schemes. We have sold off pretty much all our production to overseas buyers and import most of our goods using money we don't have. At the same time, we need to support an aging population.

It is no coincidence that China has the money to build fast railways. So long as we keep importing its goods then they have money to spend on infrastructure, and it costs less to build there as well.

The complete HS2 was expected to cost about £37.5bn in 2009 prices. The current expectation is that just Phase 1 will cost £68bn in 2023 prices.

 

[signed]

China also has very little to no political obstacles

If someone on the Politiburo (the 24 highest ranking members of the CCP) and especially Xi Jinping says we do something, it's going to be done.

Anywhere else will have politics involved (and that is glaringly obvious on HS2)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2024 ==


Loss of advantageous pension, benefits... also steer people that have the knowledge out of the industry and new people are needed but going to the airlines is a better career prospect than the railways now, if it's only for the benefits (free or tax-only flights on all that airline (and usually partner's) network...)

Rolling stock is also a sticky situation, with gauge difference and no domestic manufacturing (as opposed to the major countries in Europe which all have their stock manufacturer (Alstom, Stadler, CAF/Talgo, Siemens...) makes it also a major pain to get proper rolling stock (see what the UK got with the IET)

 

[Railsigns]

HS2 has primarily been cut back due to ballooning costs

No; it was cut back for political reasons.

 

[JonathanH]

No; it was cut back for political reasons.

Yes, but those political reasons are that the cost wasn't supportable.

(While it may be acknowledged that the government of the day wanted to make future tax cuts, the current government would rather spend money on other priorities as well.)

 

[PGAT]

No; it was cut back for political reasons.

And do the political reasons not involve money?

 

[Railsigns]

Yes, but those political reasons are that the cost wasn't supportable.

That was the lie pretext, but it was cut solely to try to win support for a failing government facing electoral annihilation. Happily it didn't work for them, but the country will suffer the long-term consequences of their recklessness nevertheless. And no, HS2 funding can't be "reallocated" elsewhere.

 

[JonathanH]

And no, HS2 funding can't be "reallocated" elsewhere.

Yes, I agree that is true, but the debt built up gets more difficult to recover as the costs increase, and there is opportunity cost for that debt against other projects. Having said that, what is left isn't good value for money because the expected revenue won't now materialise.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I was amused to read that the funding for HS2 has been put into the roads. If only that were the case! They are diabolical in this country as well! The reason we cannot build rail infrastructure is the same reason we can’t build reservoirs/ houses/ prisons/ hospitals/ power stations/ dual carriageways- the country is skint (partly due to the failure to invest in infrastructure), NIMBY culture (understandable but must be over-ridden from time to time), a decline in engineering skills (again, partly because of the failure to invest), and a political class that seem to be unable to consider long-term objectives, make a plan to meet them, stick to it and avoid micromanaging.

 

[Magdalia]

it is to compare what has happened in the two countries since.

Compare what has happened to those two economies since. The China economy has grown rapidly with a large Balance of Payments surplus. The UK economy has hardly grown at all, with a large Balance of Payments deficit. In that time UK public sector debt has grown from less than 40% of annual GDP to almost 100% of annual GDP. It comes down to money.

 

[Shrop]

That was the lie pretext, but it was cut solely to try to win support for a failing government facing electoral annihilation. Happily it didn't work for them, but the country will suffer the long-term consequences of their recklessness nevertheless. And no, HS2 funding can't be "reallocated" elsewhere.

Exactly. Sunak watched with horror as the Tories lost two by-elections on the same day, in Yorkshire and Somerset, both from majorities of around 20,000. He very nearly lost three, the third being in Boris Johnson's former constituency of Uxbridge, which the Tories clung on to by a small amount, but in sheer desperation, Sunak interpreted this clinging on as a sign that voters throughout the UK despised the "war on motorists". It was clearly desperation because he was only thinking about ULEZ which is a London scheme, and yet he manipulated the whole thing as he needed a reason to cut expenditure on HS2. My concern is, how did people in the rail industry let him get away with this?

 

[JonathanH]

My concern is, how did people in the rail industry let him get away with this?

What power did they have to do anything about it? HS2 is currently a construction project, not a rail industry project.

in sheer desperation, Sunak interpreted this clinging on as a sign that voters throughout the UK despised the "war on motorists".

Yes, that did exhibit some naivety, although it is noticeable that Reform had long had cancellation of HS2 as a centrepiece policy.

 

[Nottingham59]

Almost 20 years ago, in 2005, consideration was being given to high speed rail developments in the UK and in China. In both countries one of the proposals was Maglev, the Chinese were pleased with the success of their 430kph link from Shanghai to Pudong airport and gave much consideration to using this technology from Shanghai to Beijing. The CEO of “500kmh”, the Maglev proposal for the UK, rode the Shanghai Maglev with the then Shadow Chancellor George Osborne who expressed much enthusiasm, although back in the UK it met with a lot of scepticism, scorn and opposition from the heavy rail industry. However, any thoughts of Maglev were scuppered by the fatal accident on the Transrapid test track in Germany in 2006, and the focus on to heavy rail in both countries was secured.

But this is just a bit of background, the intention is not to focus on Maglev, it is to compare what has happened in the two countries since. The UK went with the Greengauge21 proposal which evolved into HS2, and we all know the sorry story of how this has developed. The majority of it has been killed off, the only bit that remains is yet another project to serve London, and it has completely failed in its objective of levelling up The North. Some might justify prioritising HS2 Phase 1 by saying that London to Birmingham has more passengers than any pairs of cities further north, but that it exactly the point of levelling up – it’s NOT about yet more benefits to the south.

Meanwhile HS2 has lost its offering of a 70 minute journey time saving between Birmingham and Leeds (whilst also benefitting the East Midlands and Sheffield), what remains is offering a time saving of under 30 minutes between London and Birmingham, with this southern section costing far, far more per mile, and benefitting nowhere in between. And the opening of the remnants of this decimated project is still many years into the future.

Then there is China. Their Shanghai to Beijing route was has been open to passengers since 2011, having taken less time to build their entire 809 mile route, than HS2’s relatively tiny route length will take to complete even from now. The journey time for this 809 mile route is the same as the fastest London to Glasgow or Edinburgh trains, despite being over TWICE the distance, trains are just as frequent, and of course these London to Scotland journey times will still take almost as long after HS2 has opened.

Okay, we can excuse the UK all we like, but it does seem somewhat unsatisfactory for us as the country that pioneered railway development. Have we, as the UK culture, simply lost interest in rail development, or have we just lost capability? Are people on this forum happy to sit back and accept that rail funding keeps getting diverted to roads? Maybe you think my assessment of all this is wrong?

One big difference is that the Politburo in China are mostly qualified engineers. Xi is a chemical engineer, and many of the others are Civil Engineers.

Decision makers in the UK tend to have degrees in PPE or Classics or Medieval History.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yes, I agree that is true, but the debt built up gets more difficult to recover as the costs increase, and there is opportunity cost for that debt against other projects. Having said that, what is left isn't good value for money because the expected revenue won't now materialise.

It can be actually, money diverted that is

The green signals podcast debunked this recently with one of the senior people in the treasury.

It was new to me too!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What power did they have to do anything about it? HS2 is currently a construction project, not a rail industry project.

Many senior railway professionals were involved with the design and development of the HS2 programme, not just civil servants and contractors.
Some of them came from HS1 and Crossrail, both of which were successful (if you excuse the Crossrail overspend and delay).
The new CEO of HS2 completed the Crossrail project after the previous management failed financially.
The rail industry people might not have had much influence in Downing St, but they were all part of the DfT HS2 machine.
Their main deficiency seems to have been on contracting costs and a design that could not be flexed for affordability.
Then there's Euston, which is some unholy mix of design shortcomings and unmet expectations of the sponsors (central and local government).

 

[Gostav]

There are completely different situations between China and UK.

In early 2000s, in China their faced the problem is - The railway infrastructure is very basic, the Beijing-Shanghai Mainline, a fairly important railway line connecting the most important cities in the east, not being electrified until 2006, the top speed for passenger trains was 80km/h. Trains were slow and often heavily overloaded, sometimes requiring people to stay overnight at the train station to buy tickets. During the Spring New Year days, the railways bear a huge amount of passenger pressure.

China's highways were already well developed at that time, but - in the 2000s taking a coach travel in China would be a very interesting adventure. Overloading was common, many coaches were completely private or family-operated, there was no timetable, and if you were a foreigner, you would definitely be overcharged. I am sure l still found front engine coach in Suzhou as late as 2010, in 40 ℃ summers!

Let's look at the UK. In comparison, the need to build a brand new mainline is not so urgent. Although there are local capacity shortages on the routes, they are not that serious. There is an aging infrastructure problem, but it also is not urgent and serious.

 

[Topological]

It would be much easier to build lines if we only paid for the land the pillars sit on and could tell any NIMBY how great it was that we owned their backyard.

It is probably better that the UK is not like China, but it would be good if the UK could have a little more sense of national importance when dealing with NIMBY objections to vital infrastructure.

One lesson which could have been learned from China is the spacing of HS stations. Look how many there are on the original HS line between Shanghai and Nanjing and compare that with what we are getting from HS2.

A second lesson which I would advocate for is the building of HS stations on metro lines rather than in city centres. A case of build it and they will come for redevelopment and means that there are no expensive lines driven into the city centres.

 

[Gostav]

One lesson which could have been learned from China is the spacing of HS stations. Look how many there are on the original HS line between Shanghai and Nanjing and compare that with what we are getting from HS2.

Compare to the Shinkansen - Nishi Kyushu Shinkansen has 3 intermediate stations on the 66 km line and 5 stations at Hokuriku Shinkansen between Kanazawa and Tsuruga 125.1 km route, it seems very strange that HS2 does not serve for any communities in the middle of the route.

 

[Shrop]

It would be much easier to build lines if we only paid for the land the pillars sit on and could tell any NIMBY how great it was that we owned their backyard.

It is probably better that the UK is not like China, but it would be good if the UK could have a little more sense of national importance when dealing with NIMBY objections to vital infrastructure.

People have a misconception about the control that the Chinese Government have over their people. When I was over there I learned the obvious that if the Government want a project for the good of the country, then yes, they don't have the NIMBY situation that hampers UK projects, because people aren't really permitted to object to Government projects. However, I also learned that if you have property which they require, the Government will pay 20% over the market value of the property for its purchase. The sad thing is that rumour-mongers in the UK will only tell you the part that the public cannot object, they don't tell you about any compensation.

 

[may032]

I think it’s very simple. China is/was a far richer country wanting to grow the economy with intense infrastructure spending and therefore a lot of political will. Then there’s no democratic system so no serious pushback.

On the other hand, you have the UK - with limited political will to begin with - trying to build this hugely ambitious HSR project (for the UK at least) during a period of Austerity, Brexit and then Covid!

 

[HSTEd]

Okay, we can excuse the UK all we like, but it does seem somewhat unsatisfactory for us as the country that pioneered railway development. Have we, as the UK culture, simply lost interest in rail development, or have we just lost capability? Are people on this forum happy to sit back and accept that rail funding keeps getting diverted to roads? Maybe you think my assessment of all this is wrong?

Ultimately HS2 project has gone very poorly and I don't think its really reasonable to assign all (or even most) of the blame on the politicians that started the high speed project going 15 years ago, and sustained it through several elections and changes of government.
HS2 endured through the austerity of the 2010s and the consensus behind it only started to crumble when it became clear that it was unable to deliver as originally promised.

It appears, at least from outside the industry, that the project failed because it was poorly conceived, poorly designed and construction has been poorly executed and managed. HS2 turned into an organisation that thought it was a good idea to initiate legal action against the EU to force a rewrite of the Technical Standards for Interoperability! That hopeless action (only rescued by Brexit) speaks volumes in of itself, in my view.

I don't think it is clear that the credibility that the rail industry has lost will be regained any time soon. With the beginning (and accelerating) decarbonisation of road transport, its not really clear that the environmental credentials that has backed the railway for the bulk of my lifetime will endure in the medium term.
If the green issue should be lost, I am not sure what future the railway industry will be able to win for itself, given its recent performance with HS2 and elsewhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

Compare to the Shinkansen - Nishi Kyushu Shinkansen has 3 intermediate stations on the 66 km line and 5 stations at Hokuriku Shinkansen between Kanazawa and Tsuruga 125.1 km route, it seems very strange that HS2 does not serve for any communities in the middle of the route.

In Japan, Shinkansen lines are increasingly built as replacements for the original railway. Parallel narrow gauge lines are either closed or transferred to low intensity, local government operations when they open.

It appears that the designers of the HS2 project were desperate to avoid any idea that the classic railway would shrink or be rationalised as a result of construction.

Hence they conceive of a project where no medium or short distance traffic is abstracted and the line is filled with only long distance trafffic. This then resulted in a scheme that had to take over essentially all long distance north-south traffic to fill the line. Of course, this causes serious issues if the later phases are not built.

 

[may032]

I personally don’t think there was much wrong with the conception of HS2. An interesting mix of Shinkansen and LGV-esque design to maximise the unique circumstances of the UK network and the outcomes it was trying to achieve. Few intermediate stops and long-distance traffic were key to achieving both the release of capacity and bringing the major urban areas together, and attempting to reshape the economy. The idea was excellent, the delivery and political leadership was poor!

 

[MarkyT]

Hence they conceive of a project where no medium or short distance traffic is abstracted and the line is filled with only long distance trafffic. This then resulted in a scheme that had to take over essentially all long distance north-south traffic to fill the line. Of course, this causes serious issues if the later phases are not built.

Nothing binds future administrations into forever leaving the rump phase 1 exactly as built. Future extensions will likely have great benefits for comparatively little expenditure, as long as capacity for expansion at Euston is at least safeguarded if a smaller terminal than initially planned is built at first.

 

[Shrop]

Nothing binds future administrations into forever leaving the rump phase 1 exactly as built. Future extensions will likely have great benefits for comparatively little expenditure, as long as capacity for expansion at Euston is at least safeguarded if a smaller terminal than initially planned is built at first.

This almost sounds like you don't know that desperate attempts have been made to sell off as much of the discarded HS2 route as possible in order to prevent it being used for HS2 in the future. This is part of my original point - there must be many people in positions of influence, who are watching all of this destruction of the biggest UK rail project for decades, and just letting it happen. It really is shameful!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2024 ==

I personally don’t think there was much wrong with the conception of HS2. An interesting mix of Shinkansen and LGV-esque design to maximise the unique circumstances of the UK network and the outcomes it was trying to achieve. Few intermediate stops and long-distance traffic were key to achieving both the release of capacity and bringing the major urban areas together, and attempting to reshape the economy. The idea was excellent, the delivery and political leadership was poor!

Not much wrong wrong with the concept? Where do I start?!!! The idea was far from excellent, if it had been even half decent, it would (and easily could) have been designed in a manner that really would have benefitted the North, including the incorporation of phasing that would have prevented the debacle that has happened. The concept was designed around benefitting Heathrow as a higher priority than the North, and as such it was always fundamentally flawed.

 

[snowball]

This almost sounds like you don't know that desperate attempts have been made to sell off as much of the discarded HS2 route as possible in order to prevent it being used for HS2 in the future.

I'm sure I've seen a statement since the election that nothing has been sold off yet.

 

[HSTEd]

Nothing binds future administrations into forever leaving the rump phase 1 exactly as built. Future extensions will likely have great benefits for comparatively little expenditure, as long as capacity for expansion at Euston is at least safeguarded if a smaller terminal than initially planned is built at first.

Nothing binds them into doing that, but nothing binds them into not either.
I don't buy the argument that the government will inevitably come around and spend the money on the later phases - the idea of new railway lines, especially high-speed lines, has been pretty thoroughly discredited by this debacle.
Even if the Government eventually decides to pursue another major rail project, the idea of resurrecting HS2 is not going to be popular.

Safeguarding anything at Euston will be almost as expensive as building it, so I would not expect that to occur.
Any land not used in the terminus is almost certain to be swallowed up by other development - it is simply too valuable to be left fallow for the benefit of some hypothetical project 20+ years from now.

Unlike other truncated infrastructure projects, I am skeptical that the fragment of HS2 probably will be able to demonstrate its value sufficiently to change people's minds about it. It's becoming increasingly likely that it won't even reach Euston.

 

[may032]

Not much wrong wrong with the concept? Where do I start?!!! The idea was far from excellent, if it had been even half decent, it would (and easily could) have been designed in a manner that really would have benefitted the North, including the incorporation of phasing that would have prevented the debacle that has happened. The concept was designed around benefitting Heathrow as a higher priority than the North, and as such it was always fundamentally flawed.

Built to the original full plan, HS2 would have benefited the north. 40ish minute journeys from Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham could have rebalanced the economy between the north and midlands. Construction should have started in the north, but that’s a planning/political issue, not a slight on the fundamental idea of HS2.

 

[Manutd1999]

Built to the original full plan, HS2 would have benefited the north

That's the key oversight of HS2 IMO. The whole plan, if fully delivered without anything going wrong, was excellent. But the designers seemingly ignored the possibility of scope change. The business case has/had almost no flexibility, it was all or nothing. As soon as government started messing with small pieces of the plan, the justifications for each individual design choice fall apart like a jenga tower.

• Without the Eastern Leg the justification for the 18+ per hour capacity doesn't stack up.
• If you don't have 18ph you don't need a huge Euston terminus and maybe not even a slab track.
• Without Phase 2b to Manchester and platform extensions at Crewe, the whole plan for 400m trains looks a bit silly.
• etc. etc.

HS2 Ltd can rightly point out that it's the government who made all these changes, not them. But I feel it was naive to expect such a huge project to be delivered to plan. A more savvy approach could have been to propose a series of smaller upgrades which added up to something close to the final version.

 

[may032]

That's the key oversight of HS2 IMO. The whole plan, if fully delivered without anything going wrong, was excellent. But the designers seemingly ignored the possibility of scope change. The business case has/had almost no flexibility, it was all or nothing. As soon as government started messing with small pieces of the plan, the justifications for each individual design choice fall apart like a jenga tower.

• Without the Eastern Leg the justification for the 18+ per hour capacity doesn't stack up.
• If you don't have 18ph you don't need a huge Euston terminus and maybe not even a slab track.
• Without Phase 2b to Manchester and platform extensions at Crewe, the whole plan for 400m trains looks a bit silly.
• etc. etc.

HS2 Ltd can rightly point out that it's the government who made all these changes, not them. But I feel it was naive to expect such a huge project to be delivered to plan. A more savvy approach could have been to propose a series of smaller upgrades which added up to something close to the final version.

Playing devils advocate though, you might say that a few smaller upgrades near Manchester or Colwich help but would not have been ambitious, so would have been even easier to can.

Going full-throttle and aiming for the full network has at least meant we got a key part of it and the fundamentals for a future network, the tree trunk… without any branches.

From this point onward, Euston must be built in full and it must be slab track, so that future, competent governments can realise its potential.