HSUK vs HS2

[DiscoSteve]

There absolutely was an alternative, well-thought out and costed proposal by ARUP (who lead on HS1)

It had its merits but also drawbacks. Interesting read!

What HS2 could have learned from HS1’s 30 years of success | New Civil Engineer

Thirty years ago, I was in Blackpool where the secretary of state for transport Malcolm Rifkind made his dramatic announcement at the Conservative Party

www.newcivilengineer.com

interesting to read this in the light of HS2 P2 cancellation - clearly Packages P2A and P2B come back into the realm of possibilities now

 

[Transilien]

I do think that one of the main problems with HS2 is that the proposal (despite being phased) covered too much and as a result it was an easy target for cutbacks. In my opinion the HS2 proposal should have been Euston-Crewe and then the eastern leg could have been a completely different scheme (a HS3) that would probably have seen more support once high speed rail had demonstrated itself with the original HS2.

 

[SynthD]

I have to say I'm not too impressed with what I've seen so far, it seems to make too many assumptions on what was needed

Any examples?

has plenty of Heathrow bias

It should, to reduce domestic flights. It may not be worded this way in the report linked above, but I’d hope they set out to attract non rail users, like a minority of drivers and perhaps a majority of domestic air passengers. HSUK looks weak on this last point, at a glance, as it misses Birmingham and Manchester airports.

 

[Shrop]

Any examples?

It should, to reduce domestic flights. It may not be worded this way in the report linked above, but I’d hope they set out to attract non rail users, like a minority of drivers and perhaps a majority of domestic air passengers. HSUK looks weak on this last point, at a glance, as it misses Birmingham and Manchester airports.

Bear with me, will get back to you later after family commitments ...

 

[DiscoSteve]

Any examples?

It should, to reduce domestic flights. It may not be worded this way in the report linked above, but I’d hope they set out to attract non rail users, like a minority of drivers and perhaps a majority of domestic air passengers. HSUK looks weak on this last point, at a glance, as it misses Birmingham and Manchester airports.

don't understand this reasoning, if there is an objective to reduce domestic flights DO NOT serve airports, serve city centres. the only reason anyone goes to an airport for a domestic flight is because its the only way to get between the cities that the airports serve - cut the airports right out and go straight to the points that matter, surely.

 

[JLH4AC]

There absolutely was an alternative, well-thought out and costed proposal by ARUP (who lead on HS1)

It had its merits but also drawbacks. Interesting read!

What HS2 could have learned from HS1’s 30 years of success | New Civil Engineer

Thirty years ago, I was in Blackpool where the secretary of state for transport Malcolm Rifkind made his dramatic announcement at the Conservative Party

www.newcivilengineer.com

Yeah, that is one of the few credible actual alternatives to HS2 I have seen. Others are upgrades to the existing network that will properly be more costly and takes long to complete than HS2, Gadgetbahns,
crayonista's fantasies, empty anti-HS2 talking points or a very slight change to the alignment.

I do think that one of the main problems with HS2 is that the proposal (despite being phased) covered too much and as a result it was an easy target for cutbacks. In my opinion the HS2 proposal should have been Euston-Crewe and then the eastern leg could have been a completely different scheme (a HS3) that would probably have seen more support once high speed rail had demonstrated itself with the original HS2.

While I agree that HS2's project scope was too large and that size caused issues, I don't think it would have saved it from cutbacks as multiple cutbacks have affected Euston despite it being a key point of phase 1 and a lot of smaller scope projects have been the victim of same Treasury brained thinking that led to those cutbacks. HS1 has already demonstrated the good value of domestic high-speed rail.

 

[HSTEd]

While I agree that HS2's project scope was too large and that size caused issues, I don't think it would have saved it from cutbacks as multiple cutbacks have affected Euston despite it being a key point of phase 1 and a lot of smaller scope projects have been the victim of same Treasury brained thinking that led to those cutbacks. HS1 has already demonstrated the good value of domestic high-speed rail.

Euston wasn't cut back because of some huge and all encompassing conspiracy against HS2.
It was cut back because HS2 has been unable to deliver a workable station design on the budget they proposed.

Indeed, from the outside it appears unlikely that any of the designs were ever actually deliverable. Just look at the repeated episodes of rapid cost growth.

And if EUston isn't deliverable, the entire HS2 concept falls to pieces.

Yeah, that is one of the few credible actual alternatives to HS2 I have seen. Others are upgrades to the existing network that will properly be more costly and takes long to complete than HS2, Gadgetbahns,
crayonista's fantasies, empty anti-HS2 talking points or a very slight change to the alignment.

I personally believe the M1 Corridor is a far superior selection to the M40.
After all, the M1 corridor is where the majority of the major population centres between London and Birmingham are - and thus where the majority of the passengers are.

 

[Trainbike46]

Euston wasn't cut back because of some huge and all encompassing conspiracy against HS2.
It was cut back because HS2 has been unable to deliver a workable station design on the budget they proposed.

Indeed, from the outside it appears unlikely that any of the designs were ever actually deliverable. Just look at the repeated episodes of rapid cost growth.

And if EUston isn't deliverable, the entire HS2 concept falls to pieces.


I personally believe the M1 Corridor is a far superior selection to the M40.
After all, the M1 corridor is where the majority of the major population centres between London and Birmingham are - and thus where the majority of the passengers are.

I don't understand why you are so insistent on blaming HS2 management, yet so unwilling to blame politicians. Regarding Euston, for example, repeatedly changing the criteria for the design by politicians, as well as design criteria set by politicians that are inherently incompatible, are a key part of the issue, yet the way you post about it, it always sounds like you believe the politicians bear no responsiblity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2024 ==

Yeah, that is one of the few credible actual alternatives to HS2 I have seen. Others are upgrades to the existing network that will properly be more costly and takes long to complete than HS2, Gadgetbahns,
crayonista's fantasies, empty anti-HS2 talking points or a very slight change to the alignment.

While I agree that HS2's project scope was too large and that size caused issues, I don't think it would have saved it from cutbacks as multiple cutbacks have affected Euston despite it being a key point of phase 1 and a lot of smaller scope projects have been the victim of same Treasury brained thinking that led to those cutbacks. HS1 has already demonstrated the good value of domestic high-speed rail.

It is always difficult isn't it? in some ways it likely would have been better to split HS2 into multiple separate projects (e.g. Euston project, London-Birmingham project, Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool project, Birmingham-East-Midlands-Leeds-Newcastle project, and then projects for various sections of HS3/NPR), but at the same time, would that ever have been approved in the first place?

 

[gg1]

don't understand this reasoning, if there is an objective to reduce domestic flights DO NOT serve airports, serve city centres. the only reason anyone goes to an airport for a domestic flight is because its the only way to get between the cities that the airports serve - cut the airports right out and go straight to the points that matter, surely.

It's not the only reason, there are also internal connecting flights. Taking one example, if you want to fly direct to the west coast of the USA from Britain the only option is Heathrow. According to wikipedia approximately 3.3 million people made that journey between April 2023 and March 2024 (combined figures for LA, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland - quoted figures are for flights from the USA to Heathrow but no reason why numbers travelling in the opposite direction wouldn't be comparable). It's a reasonable assumption that a portion of these people travelled to/from elsewhere in Britain via a connecting flight. That's just one example, I'm sure there are plenty of other destination where your choice of UK departure point is very limited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_International_Airport#Top_destinations
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Top_international_destinations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle–Tacoma_International_Airport#Top_destinations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_International_Airport#Top_destinations

 

[JLH4AC]

Euston wasn't cut back because of some huge and all encompassing conspiracy against HS2.
It was cut back because HS2 has been unable to deliver a workable station design on the budget they proposed.

Indeed, from the outside it appears unlikely that any of the designs were ever actually deliverable. Just look at the repeated episodes of rapid cost growth.

And if EUston isn't deliverable, the entire HS2 concept falls to pieces.

The bulk of the cost growth is believed by experts to come from poor cost estimates caused by failing to factor in enough risk and uncertainty into the calculations, high rates of staff turnover, unforeseen costs such as Anti-HS2 protests and the pandemic, and "cost-saving" redesigns causing undue delays.

I personally believe the M1 Corridor is a far superior selection to the M40.
After all, the M1 corridor is where the majority of the major population centres between London and Birmingham are - and thus where the majority of the passengers are.

The only place I saw the M1 alignment put forward that was not just empty anti-HS2 talking points or cover for crayonista's fantasies to restore the Great Central Main Line was in official HS2 documents which were the same documents that ruled out intermediate stations between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange due to assumptions that it would reduce capacity and trains between London and Birmingham will be full at peak times.

 

[HSTEd]

The bulk of the cost growth is believed by experts to come from poor cost estimates caused by failing to factor in enough risk and uncertainty into the calculations, high rates of staff turnover, unforeseen costs such as Anti-HS2 protests and the pandemic, and "cost-saving" redesigns causing undue delays.

The Euston budget had already run away before any redesigns were ordered. It ballooned from a projected £2.6bn (from a budget of ~£3bn) to £4.4bn in a matter of a handful of months, before the 10 platform redesign was ordered.

Failure to include sufficient risk and uncertainty into calculations is pretty squarely on engineers, not politicians. Or do you expect the minister is the one drawing up cost estimates for a design performed by engineers?

And I'm not sure its reasonable not to expect large protests over constructing a high speed railway through rural terrain inside an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The only place I saw the M1 alignment put forward that was not just empty anti-HS2 talking points or cover for crayonista's fantasies to restore the Great Central Main Line was in official HS2 documents which were the same documents that ruled out intermediate stations between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange due to assumptions that it would reduce capacity and trains between London and Birmingham will be full at peak times.

Yes, but this goes back to the fundamental conception of the project.
I'd argue that HS2 was flawed from the very beginning, it has an obsession with journey times and appears (from the outside) to be trying to build an airline on the ground, rather than a railway. This doesn't really align with HS2's stated "capacity is the focus" philosophy.

Indeed, the "Birmingham trains will be full" argument is arguably the result of circular reasoning, given that only a (comparatively minor) portion of HS2s capacity is dedicated to Phase 1 rather than future phases that now will not be built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2024 ==

I don't understand why you are so insistent on blaming HS2 management, yet so unwilling to blame politicians. Regarding Euston, for example, repeatedly changing the criteria for the design by politicians, as well as design criteria set by politicians that are inherently incompatible, are a key part of the issue, yet the way you post about it, it always sounds like you believe the politicians bear no responsiblity.

Perhaps I come off as rather pro-politician, but I think it is mostly a reaction to many people in the media and elsewhere who are desperate to absolve the managers of responsibility.

If the idea that anyone involved in this is blameless is allowed to become entrenched in the political and public conciousness, it will leave us in a worse position to handle future infrastructure projects and to stop this debacle from happening again.

The managerial staff screwed this up, the politicians screwed up stopping them screwing up, and noone can come out of this looking good.

 

[Grimsby town]

The Euston budget had already run away before any redesigns were ordered. It ballooned from a projected £2.6bn (from a budget of ~£3bn) to £4.4bn in a matter of a handful of months, before the 10 platform redesign was ordered.

Changes to Euston scope pre-date the change to a 10 platform design which I believe was an Oakavee suggestion. Osborne changed the scope from a station to one with oversite development for example.

Edit:
While the cost estimation issues can be put down to engineers and management, now HS2 is being built, it appears to be being constructed pretty well e.g. the Chiltern tunnels were bored to timetable.

It's hard to argue that HS2 was cancelled because it was a failure. That suggests that there was some sort of evaluation when it was cancelled, which there clearly wasn't.

 

[Shrop]

Any examples?

It should, to reduce domestic flights. It may not be worded this way in the report linked above, but I’d hope they set out to attract non rail users, like a minority of drivers and perhaps a majority of domestic air passengers. HSUK looks weak on this last point, at a glance, as it misses Birmingham and Manchester airports.

Sorry for the delay in responding - all manner of other commitments! As for examples, well I’d really enjoy dissecting this document, but would there really be any point when so many have signed up to HS2 and simply don’t want to hear it criticised? What would I achieve?

But since you asked, let’s consider Fig 6.2 and other similar drawings as an example. These drawings show counties and districts throughout the UK with journey times from London, which must surely be factually based, but how were they devised? One might presume that each county/district shown, has minimum and maximum journey times from London in order to show the number of hours claimed. It would be fascinating to see and scrutinise that background info, and surely it must exist?

Turning to Heathrow, I have no doubt whatsoever that there has always been a strong but unjustified bias in favour of this route, so here are two alternative scenarios. Perhaps there was a belief that people would turn up at Heathrow for a flight, then see HS2 on offer and think “Ooh that looks good, perhaps I’ll use the train instead”! Or perhaps it was considered paramount to get politicians on board, and who better than Boris, during his quest for political strength (to become London Mayor and eventually PM). In addition to this, Boris’s interest in Uxbridge and his opposition to expanding Heathrow airport made it very much in the interests of HS2 to serve Heathrow as a means of gaining political support.

 

[JLH4AC]

The Euston budget had already run away before any redesigns were ordered. It ballooned from a projected £2.6bn (from a budget of ~£3bn) to £4.4bn in a matter of a handful of months, before the 10 platform redesign was ordered.

Yes, costs were rising before the redesigns but that was due to other listed factors (Most of them arguably the result of the current fiscal rules not being suited to allow the government to deliver cost-effective projects.), the redesigns arguably made the problem worse.

Failure to include sufficient risk and uncertainty into calculations is pretty squarely on engineers, not politicians. Or do you expect the minister is the one drawing up cost estimates for a design performed by engineers?

Quantity surveyors/project management, not engineers calculate the cost estimates. There are various committees and public bodies that are meant to audit publicly funded projects including their cost estimates, and DfT as the sponsor of HS2 Ltd has a duty to properly oversee their actions.

And I'm not sure its reasonable not to expect large protests over constructing a high speed railway through rural terrain inside an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Only to a point, the protests against HS2 were among the largest and longest protests against a public project in recent history and they engaged in actions (Such as tunnelling under the construction site, and breaching Covid rules.) that no one could have foreseen. On top of that HS2 Ltd itself ended up employing private security at its own expense to keep its workers and the protesters safe, as the police were unwilling or unable to properly deal with unlawful protesters.

Yes, but this goes back to the fundamental conception of the project.
I'd argue that HS2 was flawed from the very beginning, it has an obsession with journey times and appears (from the outside) to be trying to build an airline on the ground, rather than a railway. This doesn't really align with HS2's stated "capacity is the focus" philosophy.

Indeed, the "Birmingham trains will be full" argument is arguably the result of circular reasoning, given that only a (comparatively minor) portion of HS2s capacity is dedicated to Phase 1 rather than future phases that now will not be built.

HS2 is being built based on the same concept as other high-speed lines, a dedicated line with limited stations to allow high-speed trains to travel at their top speeds for more of the journey which along with reducing journey times increases capacity as trains clear a section of track sooner allow more trains to operate on a given section of track. The notable difference is its design speed is on the high end.

Birmingham trains will be full is not circular reasoning as the premises (That the more stations high-speed trains stop at the more capacity is reduced, and trains between London and Birmingham will be full.) and the conclusion (There is no/limited value for intermediate stations.) are not the same. It is very possible that there are flaws in the conclusion reached but I have not personally seen any credible proposals that have argued that.

 

[eldomtom2]

HS2 is being built based on the same concept as other high-speed lines, a dedicated line with limited stations to allow high-speed trains to travel at their top speeds for more of the journey which along with reducing journey times increases capacity as trains clear a section of track sooner allow more trains to operate on a given section of track. The notable difference is its design speed is on the high end.

Birmingham trains will be full is not circular reasoning as the premises (That the more stations high-speed trains stop at the more capacity is reduced, and trains between London and Birmingham will be full.) and the conclusion (There is no/limited value for intermediate stations.) are not the same. It is very possible that there are flaws in the conclusion reached but I have not personally seen any credible proposals that have argued that.

I think the figures regarding Shinkansen stop distance I posted are relevant here - high-speed lines can have fairly frequent stops.

 

[Shrop]

I personally believe the M1 Corridor is a far superior selection to the M40.
After all, the M1 corridor is where the majority of the major population centres between London and Birmingham are - and thus where the majority of the passengers are.

Moreover, the M1 corridor is also where the majority of the population centres are, between London and Leeds, not just as far as Birmingham.

Then there is the aspect of benefitting The North, which was a key objective of John Prescott during his time as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (including when he was deputy Prime Minister), when The Northern Way was a major consideration. Providing links between the cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds was fundamental to this. The M1 corridor would have achieved all of this a lot better than the M40 route, and yet it was benefitting Heathrow that was always more important to HS2 (and others have already, and quite rightly questioned the value of the Heathrow "imperative").

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, costs were rising before the redesigns but that was due to other listed factors (Most of them arguably the result of the current fiscal rules not being suited to allow the government to deliver cost-effective projects.), the redesigns arguably made the problem worse.

The redesigns at least offered potential to make the station deliverable.
The station project was already in serious trouble when the redesign was ordered. After all, projects that go up in price by 45-69% in three months do not tend to end well for anyone concerned.

Only to a point, the protests against HS2 were among the largest and longest protests against a public project in recent history and they engaged in actions (Such as tunnelling under the construction site, and breaching Covid rules.) that no one could have foreseen. On top of that HS2 Ltd itself ended up employing private security at its own expense to keep its workers and the protesters safe, as the police were unwilling or unable to properly deal with unlawful protesters.

Tunneling under sites to prevent construction is a well known protest tactic that has been used in the UK for decades.
Indeed, at least one protestor who used tunneling as a weapon against HS2 ("Swampy") became somewhat famous for doing it in 1996!

Given the size of the works proposed by HS2, it is unreasonable to assume that noone would protest.
The only reason they are the largest in recent history is that noone has built a project this disruptive, arguably since Twyford Down.

And given the backlash over policing of that mess, I don't think its reasonable to assume the police were going to repeat that against the HS2 protestors, in an environment far less permissible towards alleged police misconduct.
Social media means that videos of alleged police heavy-handedness will be everywhere in a matter of hours.

HS2 is being built based on the same concept as other high-speed lines, a dedicated line with limited stations to allow high-speed trains to travel at their top speeds for more of the journey which along with reducing journey times increases capacity as trains clear a section of track sooner allow more trains to operate on a given section of track. The notable difference is its design speed is on the high end.

Capacity for a railway as a function of speed peaks far below 250kph, by HS2 speeds the increased speeds reduce capacity.
And in any case, as Old Oak Common demonstrates, intermediate stations do not necessarily reduce capacity.

Whilst high speed lines very in design, the "limited station" approach (to the extent seen in HS2) is certainly very much towards the "few stations" end of the scale.
Indeed, the arguably two most succesful high speed systmes in the world make use of more intermediate stations than HS2 does (Japan and China, although the former far more than the latter).

Birmingham trains will be full is not circular reasoning as the premises (That the more stations high-speed trains stop at the more capacity is reduced, and trains between London and Birmingham will be full.) and the conclusion (There is no/limited value for intermediate stations.) are not the same. It is very possible that there are flaws in the conclusion reached but I have not personally seen any credible proposals that have argued that.

If you believe the central conceit that high speed 2 was about capacity rather than speed, the line only has to be fast enough to beat the classic railway.
If you only need to beat the classic railway, there is room for several intermediate stops. The classic railway simply is not very fast compared to what modern trains are capable of.

EDIT: Edited to add some more nuance.

 

[JLH4AC]

The redesigns at least offered potential to make the station deliverable.
The station had already become undeliverable before they started.

Projects that go up in price by 45-69% in three months do not tend to end well for anyone concerned.

Yet the National Audit Office reports details that redesigns and delays to Euston have greatly increased the costs of delivering the station.

Tunneling under sites to prevent construction is a well known protest tactic that has been used in the UK for decades.
Indeed, at least one protestor who used tunneling as a weapon against HS2 ("Swampy") became somewhat famous for doing it in 1996!

Given the size of the works proposed by HS2, it is unreasonable to assume that noone would protst.
The only reason they are the largest in recent history is that noone has built a project this disruptive, arguably since Twyford Down.

And given the backlash over policing of that mess, I don't think its reasonable to assume the police were going to repeat that against the HS2 protestors, in an environment far less permissible towards alleged police misconduct.
Social media means that videos of alleged police heavy-handedness will be everywhere in a matter of hours.

Just because it is a known protest tactic does not mean that it was foreseeable that it would be used against HS2. HS2 Ltd did not assume that no one would protest, they just did not foresee how large, enduring and disruptive they would be, given how hard it is to predict how large and enduring a protest will be a few months in advance yet alone 3-5 years in advance I do not think that is that unreasonable of a thing to have happened.

The police were more than happy to use force to crack down on the lockdown protests and the "Sarah Everard vigil", yet they seemed to treat the anti-HS2 protesters with a great deal of undue caution.

Capacity for a railway as a function of speed peaks far below 250kph, by HS2 speeds the increased speeds reduce capacity.

Yeah higher speed does not do much for capacity after a certain point and some cases may harm capacity, yet being able to maintain a consistent high speed for more of the journey does improve capacity.

And in any case, as Old Oak Common demonstrates, intermediate stations do not necessarily reduce capacity.

Old Oak Common station does reduce capacity, anytime a high-speed train stops it eats into capacity as there are limits to how fast a train can accelerate and decelerate, and dwell time will eat into the capacity even further even if there are passing tracks for express trains. HS2 Ltd saw value in having a second London station despite this.

In addition, the "limited station" approach to the extent seen in HS2 is atypical of several highly succesful high speed systems globally.
Indeed, the two most succesful high speed systmes in the world make use of substantially more intermediate stations than HS2 does (Japan and China, although the former far more than the latter).

I am aware that there are a fair number of high-speed lines with substantially more "intermediate" stations than HS2, which is why I said it is very possible that there are flaws in the conclusion, hell the proposal that started this conversation between us has intermediate stations so it not like I am against the idea of intermediate stations.

If you believe the central conceit that high speed 2 was about capacity rather than speed, the line only has to be fast enough to beat the classic railway.
If you only need to beat the classic railway, there is room for several intermediate stops. The classic railway simply is not very fast compared to what modern trains are capable of.

A railway line just fast enough to beat the classic railway would be all that is needed to improve capacity but if we are spending all that time, money and political capital to build a new main line we might as well build a proper high-speed line.

I think the figures regarding Shinkansen stop distance I posted are relevant here - high-speed lines can have fairly frequent stops.

High-speed lines can have fairly frequent stops yet even high-speed lines with relatively frequent stations are still limited and selectively chosen when compared to conventional rail lines.

 

[class26]

In today`s telegraph the government appointed British / Austria businessman Juergen Maier has presented his report into infrastructure in the UK to Labour party officials party officials this week calling for much of the HS2 network to be completed including to Manchester and Euston although not necessarily at the originally envisaged speeds

 

[snowball]

In today`s telegraph the government appointed British / Austria businessman Juergen Maier has presented his report into infrastructure in the UK to Labour party officials party officials this week calling for much of the HS2 network to be completed including to Manchester and Euston although not necessarily at the originally envisaged speeds

There is a thread about this here (admittedly only the OP so far):

Maier Rail & Urban Transport Review published

Apologies if this is already being discussed elswhere - I haven't seen a thread although this work appears to have been mentioned on HS2-related and other topics. Juergen Maier was tasked by the Labour Party in late 2023 to lead this review, which has now published its heavily Arup-ised report...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Trainbike46]

The Euston budget had already run away before any redesigns were ordered. It ballooned from a projected £2.6bn (from a budget of ~£3bn) to £4.4bn in a matter of a handful of months, before the 10 platform redesign was ordered.

At times I wish that there'd be more clarity as to what turned out so much more expensive than expected. Was it land acquisition? design? land clearing? unexepected utilities in the way? material costs? I'd guess it's a mix of factors, and material costs have increased a lot, both for HS2 related factors (increased demand for some key materials), and unrelated ones (Ukraine war caused a massive spike in many construction materials, including steel)

Failure to include sufficient risk and uncertainty into calculations is pretty squarely on engineers, not politicians. Or do you expect the minister is the one drawing up cost estimates for a design performed by engineers?

Agreed that one is very much on the designers

And I'm not sure its reasonable not to expect large protests over constructing a high speed railway through rural terrain inside an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

On the one hand, protests should have been expected, on the other hand, the protests at HS2 were more intense than many people including me expected, with things like that tunnel at Euston - I don't think we can really blame them for not expecting people to build a tunnel under the site in protest

Perhaps I come off as rather pro-politician, but I think it is mostly a reaction to many people in the media and elsewhere who are desperate to absolve the managers of responsibility.

If the idea that anyone involved in this is blameless is allowed to become entrenched in the political and public conciousness, it will leave us in a worse position to handle future infrastructure projects and to stop this debacle from happening again.

The managerial staff screwed this up, the politicians screwed up stopping them screwing up, and noone can come out of this looking good.

I'd say it's more like, managerial staff screwed it up, the politicians got involved and made it worse. Everyone looks bad, but we have way more options of demanding better of politicians than of the managerial staff, as the only way to influence the managerial staff is through the politicians

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2024 ==

It's hard to argue that HS2 was cancelled because it was a failure. That suggests that there was some sort of evaluation when it was cancelled, which there clearly wasn't.

Agreed!

 

[Shrop]

At times I wish that there'd be more clarity as to what turned out so much more expensive than expected. Was it land acquisition? design? land clearing? unexepected utilities in the way? material costs? I'd guess it's a mix of factors, and material costs have increased a lot, both for HS2 related factors (increased demand for some key materials), and unrelated ones (Ukraine war caused a massive spike in many construction materials, including steel)

Let's get back to basics for a moment. If there's one thing consultants are desperate to do it's to win contracts, after all that's fundamental to their existence. It immediately follows that in order to do this, they need to attract people (politicians in the case of HS2) to appoint them, which involves their product being as attractive as possible, and for the most affordable price, which usually means producing it for a smaller price than their competitors. Either that or a significantly superior product.

With regard to making the product attractive, as I said above in this thread, it was paramount to get politicians on board, and who better than Boris, during his quest for political strength (to become London Mayor and eventually PM). In addition to this, Boris’s interest in Uxbridge and his opposition to expanding Heathrow airport made it very much in the interests of HS2 to serve Heathrow as a means of gaining political support, through (apparently) relieving pressure on the need to expand the airport itself.

Then we have price - consultants will always downplay costs in order to gain the contract. Now I couldn't say for certain that anyone knew in advance that HS2 would be likely to cost more than its original estimates, but I would be amazed if anyone who knew a lot about true costs, ever really expected it to be built for the original prices quoted. The focus of the consultants once the contract has been awarded, then changes from how to gain the contract, to how to justify the price increases, and of course they're usually pretty adept at this. Also, with a huge and lengthy contract like this, it's generally easy to find reasons for price increases, because the world changes and then the "unexpected" increases (Ukraine, Covid etc) can be used to advantage (far be it from me to use the word "exaggerated"!). Please feel free to disagree if you like, but I'd think this at least partially explains why it went so much over budget.

 

[Shrop]

This thread seems to have gone quiet again. I know its title was about HS2 vs HSUK, but I feel sure that the OP was also interested in other alternatives to HS2 (plus, as some have pointed out in this thread, HSUK never was really an alternative).

I’ve noted the document kindly posted at #54 entitled “HS2 Strategic Alternatives”. It’s interesting that this was published (in October 2012) almost four years after HS2 Ltd was set up by Gordon Brown (as Prime Minster) in January 2009, which in turn followed Greengauge21’s June 2007 document “High Speed Two”. The route and the priorities were thus clearly there back in 2007, and with the amount of investigations, expenses and political commitment shown during the several years leading to 2012, things were never likely to change much from that concept.

So, as is clear from the 2012 document, HS2 was only ever about two things, ie improving capacity out of London (particularly to relieve the WCML), and to improve connectivity, with particular focus on airports and international travel. In order to achieve these things, it had as its immovable first objective, a route from London to Birmingham (please comment if you disagree), then after that (and ONLY after that), a Y-shaped route from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds.

My question therefore is, were there any other schemes considered which focussed on balancing up the UK as a whole, such as providing the Northern Way corridor (Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Teesside-Tyneside), with links southwards to Birmingham and London? Rather than simply focussing on existing demand to London and catering only for that? After all, HS2 has now become yet another London-centric scheme which will have the inevitable result of adding to the numbers of people commuting to and from London, and thus rather than closing the massive productivity gap between the Southeast and The North, it will only widen this gap further.

Other alternatives didn’t have to be purely focussed on the Northern Way, it’s just that the “HS2 Strategic Alternatives” seem to be incredibly restricted, still having almost exactly the same functions as HS2, ie with little or no thought to giving just a little balance to the UK instead of its overbearing focus on London. No-one is denying that London will always be the UKs No.1 city and focus for travel demand, but were we never even interested in The North except as an add-on, which could, and of course now has, been abandoned by HS2?

 

[SynthD]

My question therefore is, were there any other schemes considered which focussed on balancing up the UK as a whole

That sounds like a Pandora’s box, one that a non political (at that point wasn’t it considered not government owned) body like NR would stay out of. Is it justifiable use of money to ignore the visible demand because a politician wants to improve their part of the country?

 

[JamesT]

Surely the scheme for addressing connectivity in the North was Northern Powerhouse Rail?
But that’s not an alternative to HS2, but something that needed doing as well.
I’m not seeing how it’s benefiting the North by not connecting the UK’s largest cities together as HS2 was planned to, it seems more like spite.

 

[Shrop]

Surely the scheme for addressing connectivity in the North was Northern Powerhouse Rail?
But that’s not an alternative to HS2, but something that needed doing as well.
I’m not seeing how it’s benefiting the North by not connecting the UK’s largest cities together as HS2 was planned to, it seems more like spite.

As I said above, giving a little help to The North didn't need to be instead of connecting to London, a link to London could and should always have been part of any scheme. It's just the focus first and foremost on London at the expense of everywhere else (as the HS2 scheme has now proved beyond doubt), seemed unnecessarily biased. My question was whether any schemes were ever considered that weren't based on London to Birmingham as a fundamental, with anywhere else being purely an add-on after that?

 

[JamesT]

As I said above, giving a little help to The North didn't need to be instead of connecting to London, a link to London could and should always have been part of any scheme. It's just the focus first and foremost on London at the expense of everywhere else (as the HS2 scheme has now proved beyond doubt), seemed unnecessarily biased. My question was whether any schemes were ever considered that weren't based on London to Birmingham as a fundamental, with anywhere else being purely an add-on after that?

Unfortunately the reports are now sitting in the National Archive whose website only seems to give the front pages. But there were a series of reports in the late 2000s forecasting increased traffic on the railways and suggesting high speed lines would be the solution.
The WCML, especially the Southern end is one of the most intensively used lines around and running close to capacity. If you’re going to build a network of high speed lines it is the obvious candidate to start with. It would have been a politically biased choice if it wasn’t the basis of a scheme.

 

[Nottingham59]

As I said above, giving a little help to The North didn't need to be instead of connecting to London, a link to London could and should always have been part of any scheme. It's just the focus first and foremost on London at the expense of everywhere else (as the HS2 scheme has now proved beyond doubt), seemed unnecessarily biased. My question was whether any schemes were ever considered that weren't based on London to Birmingham as a fundamental, with anywhere else being purely an add-on after that?

In a word, no.

Back in 1998, total passenger volumes were half of what they are now. There was plenty of spare capacity in the rail network and it's only really the southern WCML (basically London to Birmingham) that was too full to be relieved by longer trains or higher density rolling stock like the IET (now class 80x).

In the early 90s they were still closing lines - Epping-Ongar (1994); Wimbledon-West Croydon (1997), now a tramline; SoT to Market Drayton (1998); Cambridge-St Ives (1992; now a busway). Lots of colliery lines in Notts and Yorkshire. Wikipedia lists 39 lines closed in the 1990s.

List of closed railway lines in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Shrop]

Unfortunately the reports are now sitting in the National Archive whose website only seems to give the front pages. But there were a series of reports in the late 2000s forecasting increased traffic on the railways and suggesting high speed lines would be the solution.
The WCML, especially the Southern end is one of the most intensively used lines around and running close to capacity. If you’re going to build a network of high speed lines it is the obvious candidate to start with. It would have been a politically biased choice if it wasn’t the basis of a scheme.

Thanks, and in some ways it makes sense to relieve one of the busiest lines in the country, but if you're talking about high speed lines then it really doesn't make sense to just build it from London to Birmingham because that saves only 20 minutes on what a non-stop train could do today already. A high speed line would have been worthwhile from London to Sheffield/Leeds, with potential to continue to Teesside/Tyneside/Edinburgh/Glasgow, but London to Birmingham only will forever be a curse on the public perception of railway development in the UK. This could and should have been foreseen by any credible scheme.

At least Birmingham to Leeds would have saved an hour on the existing journey time, and for a far lower cost. And why would it be politically biased, any more than building London-centric schemes are politically biased against the north?

 

[JamesT]

Thanks, and in some ways it makes sense to relieve one of the busiest lines in the country, but if you're talking about high speed lines then it really doesn't make sense to just build it from London to Birmingham because that saves only 20 minutes on what a non-stop train could do today already. A high speed line would have been worthwhile from London to Sheffield/Leeds, with potential to continue to Teesside/Tyneside/Edinburgh/Glasgow, but London to Birmingham only will forever be a curse on the public perception of railway development in the UK. This could and should have been foreseen by any credible scheme.

At least Birmingham to Leeds would have saved an hour on the existing journey time, and for a far lower cost. And why would it be politically biased, any more than building London-centric schemes are politically biased against the north?

Other lines may have been worthwhile, but not as worthwhile as London to Birmingham. It's not about saving time, it's about relieving one of the most congested lines in the country.

And it's politically biased to take a report from experts recommending a particular choice and choosing something else.