BBC Panorama programme on HS2 Monday 16th September at 8PM

[Mikey C]

Tonight's Panorama is a one hour programme about HS2 (BBC1 8pm), and why it was so expensive. The webpage gives an indication about its content. Too much to quote, but the starting point is

There is no shortage of places to start when trying to make sense of what went wrong for HS2 and how for around twice the original budget we’re getting half the line that was planned.
One starting place is the name itself - High Speed 2.
Nobody wants a slow railway. But was it ever wise to build a super-fast one?
HS2’s journey began in the 1980s. Rail experts looked across the channel at France’s new high-speed TGV network and dreamed of a similar service here.
The TGV trains swishing through the French countryside at just under 200 mph were in stark contrast to the UK’s creaking rolling stock.
HS2 promised gleaming new trains racing between English cities at even faster speeds.
A government commissioned study in 2006 had concluded Britain needed greater rail capacity. Launching his report, Sir Rod Eddington said: “My first recommendation to Government is…to improve the capacity and the performance of the existing transport network.”

HS2 blew billions - here's how and why

How did HS2 manage to go so far over its original budget?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jfowkes]

The main thing that struck me reading the article was that the term "taxpayer's money" was used several times.

My understanding was that HS2 is funded through borrowing, not from taxation. It's all public money, but the source is an important distinction I think. The lack of nuance there suggests either a lack of understanding or an editorial bias on the part of the producers.

 

[QueensCurve]

Available now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002336f/panorama-hs2-the-railway-that-blew-billions

 

[Mikey C]

The main thing that struck me reading the article was that the term "taxpayer's money" was used several times.

My understanding was that HS2 is funded through borrowing, not from taxation. It's all public money, but the source is an important distinction I think. The lack of nuance there suggests either a lack of understanding or an editorial bias on the part of the producers.

There's so separate "borrowing pot". The government raised money and spends money, and each year the difference is borrowed.

 

[Harpo]

The evidence from Prof Andrew McNaughton, former Chief Engineer, to the Transport Committee makes interesting side reading.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13783/pdf/

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126525/pdf/

 

[Snow1964]

The main thing that struck me reading the article was that the term "taxpayer's money" was used several times.

My understanding was that HS2 is funded through borrowing, not from taxation. It's all public money, but the source is an important distinction I think. The lack of nuance there suggests either a lack of understanding or an editorial bias on the part of the producers.

There is no HS2 legal entity that has borrowed money, instead it has all come from Government general funding pot. Ultimately that comes from taxation and any timing difference between tax and spending is borrowed.

Unless HS2 is definitely repaying the cost of the construction, ie intends to repay the borrowing, then it is very fair to say taxpayers money.

No different in principle to saying buying school uniform is done with parents money, not family funds. Even though a few decades later the child may decide to pay back their parents.

 

[Class 800]

Today's Panorama is all about HS2. (watch on BBC One at 8pm today or on the iPlayer here)
It's a special hour-long episode (most are 30 mins) and comes accompanied with a BBC InDepth article by reporter Richard Bilton.

I have not watched it yet but doubtless many of you have, or will do.
So I just wanted to kick off the discussion and ask what people's thoughts are, the experts and insiders as well as the enthusiasts here.

Once I get a chance to watch I will add my own views (as an enthus, but until then I do want to hear what everybody thinks of how the issue has been presented.

I often have to remind myself that those outside the transport community will shape their opinions on things like HS2 based on programs like Panorama which are often very critical.
I predict that this episode will likely paint HS2 in a very negative light, given the title seems to show it will be painted as nothing but a colossal waste of public money.

But I may be proven wrong.

 

[Towers]

I think even the most avid fan would struggle to describe it as being good value for money so far!

 

[OliverReed]

I know a girl who works in the comms team at HS2. A decade ago she told me it was a ****ing ****show. So no suprises really.

 

[Cowley]

Today's Panorama is all about HS2. (watch on BBC One at 8pm today or on the iPlayer here)
It's a special hour-long episode (most are 30 mins) and comes accompanied with a BBC InDepth article by reporter Richard Bilton.

I have not watched it yet but doubtless many of you have, or will do.
So I just wanted to kick off the discussion and ask what people's thoughts are, the experts and insiders as well as the enthusiasts here.

Once I get a chance to watch I will add my own views (as an enthus, but until then I do want to hear what everybody thinks of how the issue has been presented.

I often have to remind myself that those outside the transport community will shape their opinions on things like HS2 based on programs like Panorama which are often very critical.
I predict that this episode will likely paint HS2 in a very negative light, given the title seems to show it will be painted as nothing but a colossal waste of public money.

But I may be proven wrong.

Just to say that we already had a thread going on it so feel free to edit the first bit of your post if you want.

 

[lachlan]

I know a girl who works in the comms team at HS2. A decade ago she told me it was a ****ing ****show. So no suprises really.

To be fair, the press releases and communications seem to have gotten a lot better in recent years

 

[deltic]

I know a girl who works in the comms team at HS2. A decade ago she told me it was a ****ing ****show. So no suprises really.

No girls were/are employed by HS2!

I read the article which was pretty poor. Bent Flyvbjerg gave a pretty good indication of the likely cost of HS2 early on. The fact that HS2 management claimed they could deliver it for less backed up by DfT was purely to keep the project on the road. A tactic that failed spectacularly. HS2 was always going to be a £100bn project pretending otherwise is what killed it.

 

[Mikey C]

That was a grim watch, and one which does question the honesty of a number of people involved in the project.

I hadn't realised that it was the desire to have a REALLY high speed line that led to such a straight and hideously expensive route under the Chilterns. HS1 follows the LTS line, A13, A2/M2 and M20 for much of its route, thus reducing the impact.

 

[Shrop]

That was a grim watch, and one which does question the honesty of a number of people involved in the project.

I hadn't realised that it was the desire to have a REALLY high speed line that led to such a straight and hideously expensive route under the Chilterns. HS1 follows the LTS line, A13, A2/M2 and M20 for much of its route, thus reducing the impact.

Indeed it was a grim watch. I've put a number of posts on this forum in the past where I've mentioned China, and people have responded by pouring scorn on the Chinese dictatorial style saying woe betide the people who have property or farmland in the path of the route. It seems that HS2 Limited might well have treated a lot of property and landowners in the UK, more badly than the Chinese treat their people!

I won't start on the other points here, except to reiterate the point I've made earlier on other threads, that just as HS1 has followed existing transport corridors in part, HS2 should have followed the M1 corridor (and not gone via Heathrow). In part that is, I have never said that it should follow the M1 throughout!

 

[may032]

Just finished watching it. I thought it came across as a very poor journalistic exploration of the subject. Several high profile fervently anti-HS2 interviewees with limited balance I would’ve expected from the BBC. Did it mention the word ‘capacity’ once?

 

[Haywain]

Just finished watching it. I thought it came across as a very poor journalistic exploration of the subject. Several high profile fervently anti-HS2 interviewees with limited balance I would’ve expected from the BBC. Did it mention the word ‘capacity’ once?

I agree with this. I felt that from the start the editorial agenda of the programme was clear. The only real balance was provided by Phillip Hammond and there was no investigation of the benefits. As for "taxpayers money" that is how big infrastructure projects work, but it's capital expenditure which will get written off over many, many years.

 

[geoffk]

I've recorded this but not yet watched it. Some of the comments suggest I should decide not to bother!

 

[may032]

I've recorded this but not yet watched it. Some of the comments suggest I should decide not to bother!

I really was disappointed! I’m open-minded to HS2 criticism, but this wasn’t a serious analysis of the issue. I expected so much more from Panorama…

 

[Mikey C]

I've recorded this but not yet watched it. Some of the comments suggest I should decide not to bother!

I'd watch it.

I don't agree with the above comments, as the main criticism wasn't about whether an extra line was needed, but over the disastrous financial overspends and the coverups.

I agree with this. I felt that from the start the editorial agenda of the programme was clear. The only real balance was provided by Phillip Hammond and there was no investigation of the benefits. As for "taxpayers money" that is how big infrastructure projects work, but it's capital expenditure which will get written off over many, many years.

You can't just overlook a £50bn (or whatever) overspend as something to be written off over the years.

HS2 was authorised by parliament based on certain cost projections which were horrendously wrong. Good look getting any other major rail project approved now.

 

[Haywain]

You can't just overlook a £50bn (or whatever) overspend as something to be written off over the years.

When the government try to claim that cancelling part of HS2 magically allows potholes to be repaired, I think you can and should.

 

[may032]

I'd watch it.

I don't agree with the above comments, as the main criticism wasn't about whether an extra line was needed, but over the disastrous financial overspends and the coverups.

You can't just overlook a £50bn (or whatever) overspend as something to be written off over the years.

HS2 was authorised by parliament based on certain cost projections which were horrendously wrong. Good look getting any other major rail project approved now.

Yet throughout the programme it made reference to anti-HS2 protests - who were certainly not proposing a slower/different route, rather scrapping the whole thing - and featured quite a few interviews with landowners, who all shared anti-HS2 sentiment. At one point the journalist asked ‘does that make you feel angry?’ - talk about a leading question!

No link was made between the protests and MPs forcing route changes and tunnelling that added significant cost. The numbers used also appeared to lack the context of inflation, and they included the circa £35bn initial estimation that was slightly misleading as the act of parliament was not based on that number.

 

[Lost property]

I often have to remind myself that those outside the transport community will shape their opinions on things like HS2 based on programs like Panorama which are often very critical.
I predict that this episode will likely paint HS2 in a very negative light, given the title seems to show it will be painted as nothing but a colossal waste of public money.

But I may be proven wrong.

Actually, the intent of programmes like Panorama is to be critical and not, in this case, to be a PR promotion for HS2 . You will be pleased to learn your prediction was correct however. That, and normals, strangely, do take an interest in transport projects even more so in the case of the funding of this unwarranted white elephant and cash cow to be milked dry by construction companies.

" No link was made between the protests and MPs forcing route changes and tunnelling that added significant cost. The numbers used also appeared to lack the context of inflation, and they included the circa £35bn initial estimation that was slightly misleading as the act of parliament was not based on that number."

You must have missed the bit showing a collection of MP's outside Downing St, there to lobby for route changes away from their constituencies. That, and the reference to 11 miles of tunnels, under the Chilterns, plus, another 22 miles out of the total length...inflation was certainly mentioned as was the willingness of the Gov't to keep pouring money in. The reaction to the interview by a schoolboy to Boris, naturally, saying you just keep digging a deeper hole, was telling.

 

[Magdalia]

My understanding was that HS2 is funded through borrowing, not from taxation. It's all public money, but the source is an important distinction I think.

There's so separate "borrowing pot". The government raised money and spends money, and each year the difference is borrowed.

There is no HS2 legal entity that has borrowed money, instead it has all come from Government general funding pot. Ultimately that comes from taxation and any timing difference between tax and spending is borrowed.

As for "taxpayers money" that is how big infrastructure projects work, but it's capital expenditure which will get written off over many, many years.

Two bits that often get forgotten here are that there are interest payments on the debt, and that the bondholders have to be paid at maturity.

There is nothing wrong in principle about borrowing to pay for infrastructure investment, when that infrastructure is going to deliver tax income in the future to pay off the debts when they mature.

But the taxpayer has to be able to afford the interest payments during the construction period.

 

[Shrop]

Just to say that we already had a thread going on it so feel free to edit the first bit of your post if you want.

There are several threads discussing HS2, but (to me at least) it isn't obvious which thread you refer to that we already have. Is it still active, and could I trouble you to you provide a link to it? Thanks

 

[Cowley]

There are several threads discussing HS2, but (to me at least) it isn't obvious which thread you refer to that we already have. Is it still active, and could I trouble you to you provide a link to it? Thanks

It was just a duplicate of this thread, but the two have been merged now

 

[jon0844]

When the government try to claim that cancelling part of HS2 magically allows potholes to be repaired, I think you can and should.

Our local roads are already full of potholes and sunken manhole covers that are going to be an absolute nightmare this coming Winter. It's great to think a new high capacity railway line designed to last 100+ years was curtailed to fix some roads for a matter of months.

It's even more crazy to think the last Government actually tweeted posters to brag about this.

 

[davews]

I have not watched Panorama for a while so was unaware what to expect. Last night's programme had a clear agenda, to expose the spiralling overspend, and everything else was a side show. Where was this rather bare studio with the weird 'take now' boards with tube trains (I think) whizzing past? It probably achieved its aim of discrediting HS2 limited but I would have thought the BBC could have portrayed it in a more positive light, after all the things that have been completed like the Colne Valley viaduct show British engineering excellence at its best.

 

[jon0844]

I wish HS2 had just been sold as a new railway line, with high capacity, and less emphasis on the speed. People moan about overcrowded trains, and this line would help alleviate that. Then people wouldn't be so hung up on 'just saving 15 minutes' because it wouldn't have been about time saving.

But we are where we are.

 

[may032]

I wish HS2 had just been sold as a new railway line, with high capacity, and less emphasis on the speed. People moan about overcrowded trains, and this line would help alleviate that. Then people wouldn't be so hung up on 'just saving 15 minutes' because it wouldn't have been about time saving.

But we are where we are.

The BBC article accompanying the show made (limited) reference to how it should have been called High Capacity. I don’t necessarily disagree with this.

Calling it the ‘High Capacity Rail’ project would have better framed its genuine need to the general public.

 

[Shrop]

HS2 was marketed badly from the outset. It was always about providing additional capacity to relieve our existing overcrowded routes, which could only be done properly with the construction of a new railway, and since this was going to be necessary, the marginal cost of making it high speed was small enough to make it well worth the additional cost of doing so. This should always have been a focus of selling it to the country, but sadly the marketing of HS2 was woefully lacking.

As for its huge cost over-runs, I’m not sure why people in this thread are so dismissive of the Panorama presentation when a great deal of the concern expressed was about this very fact, which is hardly a falsified concern. As shown in the programme, Andrew Bruce and Doug Thornton appear to have been treated extremely badly, being dismissed from their jobs as soon as they sought to be honest about the cost over-runs. It brought to my mind the disgraceful cover-ups and silencing of whistle-blowers in the Post Office scandal. Did Panorama somehow misrepresent this situation?

At the same time that HS2 was being developed there was a serious proposal for Maglev and later there was HSUK, but people on this forum have been quick to dismiss both as crayonista exercises by enthusiasts who had little concept of real costs. Perhaps someone with greater expertise than myself then, could explain why Maglev and HSUK both deserved such scorn, and why HS2 doesn’t?