Building HS2 to Euston and Crewe could pay for itself, analysis finds

[InTheEastMids]

A good demonstration that delaying expensive projects to save money always ends up costing more in the long run.

Agreed, in particular, getting trapped in a doom loop of redesigning to save cost, only for inflation to eat your savings.
NAO said (2023?) that DfT did "not know what it wants to achieve" at Euston. Has this changed? Is the £9.4Bn for a reasonably defined scope?

Secondly, are people genuinely being realistic about what large infrastructure projects cost? Third runway at Heathrow was £17Bn in 2017 pounds, I think. Hinkley Point C is North of £40Bn in 2024 pounds.

Thirdly, there's no mention of benefits. Benefits are subject to inflation too Whilst the FT is generally regarded as a serious newspaper, without thinking about the benefits, it is not a serious piece of analysis; it also doesn't say what option this is costing...

Lastly, I think there is a growing consensus that a significant redevelopment of the existing Euston station (including both tube station) almost certainly has to happen anyway, and might be more expensive if not built. However if you're a journalist, it's a nice big number to add to an already big number to make a scary number.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The DfT’s paper puts a £6bn price tag on the new HS2 station and tunnels. Another NAO report from earlier this year suggests a further £1.5bn is needed to rebuild the existing Euston station next door, taking the total cost to £7.5bn.

That £1.5 billion should NOT be costed to HS2 since the rest of Euston requires rebuilding anyway; that should be accounted separately.

 

[Nottingham59]

What I'd like to see is a full breakdown of these costs, including a distinction between costs that would have been incurred anyway, and costs that have arisen from changes to the specification since the original design.

 

[Dr Hoo]

That £1.5 billion should NOT be costed to HS2 since the rest of Euston requires rebuilding anyway; that should be accounted separately.

That’s fine as a siloed piece of accounting precision but one way or another ‘the government’ (aka The Tax Payer) will have to find the money whether or not it is ‘laundered’ through TfL, GBR or whatever.

 

[camflyer]

Agreed, in particular, getting trapped in a doom loop of redesigning to save cost, only for inflation to eat your savings.
NAO said (2023?) that DfT did "not know what it wants to achieve" at Euston. Has this changed? Is the £9.4Bn for a reasonably defined scope?

Secondly, are people genuinely being realistic about what large infrastructure projects cost? Third runway at Heathrow was £17Bn in 2017 pounds, I think. Hinkley Point C is North of £40Bn in 2024 pounds.

Thirdly, there's no mention of benefits. Benefits are subject to inflation too Whilst the FT is generally regarded as a serious newspaper, without thinking about the benefits, it is not a serious piece of analysis; it also doesn't say what option this is costing...

Lastly, I think there is a growing consensus that a significant redevelopment of the existing Euston station (including both tube station) almost certainly has to happen anyway, and might be more expensive if not built. However if you're a journalist, it's a nice big number to add to an already big number to make a scary number.

The public have no idea how much infrastructure costs. A "billion pounds" sounds like a lot of money but really doesn't buy that much - it's the cost of the rebuild of a major railway station (such as London Bridge or Reading), about 10-20 miles of a major road upgrade or new city centre hospital.

Euston is a total mess and doing nothing isn't an option. Even without HS2 it would still need a total rebuild. The danger is that it is done now on the cheap with the minimum number of platforms so that in 20 years time when the northern extension finally gets done it will need another rebuild.

 

[modernrail]

The public have no idea how much infrastructure costs. A "billion pounds" sounds like a lot of money but really doesn't buy that much - it's the cost of the rebuild of a major railway station (such as London Bridge or Reading), about 10-20 miles of a major road upgrade or new city centre hospital.

Euston is a total mess and doing nothing isn't an option. Even without HS2 it would still need a total rebuild. The danger is that it is done now on the cheap with the minimum number of platforms so that in 20 years time when the northern extension finally gets done it will need another rebuild.

I would love to see a design competition run for Euston station that said, produce designs based on:

- x budget
- this order of building
- this throughout of passengers and upgrade requirement for the underground
- trying to capture this opportunity int terms of wrap around development

And see what comes back

I really don’t trust the consultant led approach on the basis of fixed lots for this sort of work. I also don’t like the tendency to think because it is high speed rail it needs to be massively grand.

There are obviously 10000’s of considerations in a project this big and complex - but I would love to see a design competition that goes back to first principles a bit to see why design the constraints above encourage/throw out. My personal view is that some of the best and most interesting architecture can come from problem solving around constraints.

They could launch that pretty quickly with a wider constraints file to see what comes back. Put some new energy into the whole thing.

 

[ABB125]

I would love to see a design competition run for Euston station that said, produce designs based on:

- x budget
- this order of building
- this throughout of passengers and upgrade requirement for the underground
- trying to capture this opportunity int terms of wrap around development

And see what comes back

I really don’t trust the consultant led approach on the basis of fixed lots for this sort of work. I also don’t like the tendency to think because it is high speed rail it needs to be massively grand.

There are obviously 10000’s of considerations in a project this big and complex - but I would love to see a design competition that goes back to first principles a bit to see why design the constraints above encourage/throw out. My personal view is that some of the best and most interesting architecture can come from problem solving around constraints.

They could launch that pretty quickly with a wider constraints file to see what comes back. Put some new energy into the whole thing.

Big empty concrete box with strong slab roof for development above (but doesn't need to be too strong as you can only go up about 7-8 storeys?). Wide enough for the original 11 platform station.
Build phase 1 HS2 platforms as far west as possible. Then use the remaining space to temporarily divert half the current station platforms into the new box (yes, I know there are issues with height differences between WCML and HS2. Build a steeper inclined, with derogation from normal standards as required - it's temporary). Knock down half the existing station, and then extend the new concrete box into the space. Move the other half of the current station platforms into this space, and repeat the process for the final part of the existing station. Move the temporary platforms in the HS2 bit back to the classic bit, then fit out the remaining HS2 platforms just in time for the opening of phase 2 (I wish ).
Result is a cheap(ish) flexible (in terms of space, not structure!) concrete box, completely rebuilt full station. Oversite development can then happen. Won't win any architectural or design awards*, but that should never even enter consideration for a scheme like this (the moment the designers start thinking "why don't we try to win an award with this building, good job someone else is paying for it" is when it starts to go wrong).

I'll accept a cheque for my £1bn consultancy fee!

*Unless there's a "designing something whose primary function is to function as a building, not to win awards that no-one cares about" award...

 

[camflyer]

I would love to see a design competition run for Euston station that said, produce designs based on:

- x budget
- this order of building
- this throughout of passengers and upgrade requirement for the underground
- trying to capture this opportunity int terms of wrap around development

And see what comes back

I really don’t trust the consultant led approach on the basis of fixed lots for this sort of work. I also don’t like the tendency to think because it is high speed rail it needs to be massively grand.

There are obviously 10000’s of considerations in a project this big and complex - but I would love to see a design competition that goes back to first principles a bit to see why design the constraints above encourage/throw out. My personal view is that some of the best and most interesting architecture can come from problem solving around constraints.

They could launch that pretty quickly with a wider constraints file to see what comes back. Put some new energy into the whole thing.

I suspect a lot of the cost and complexity is keeping Euston operational throughout the work. It could well be cheaper and quicker to close the station for a year or so that it could be knocked down and totally rebuilt but that would be far too disruptive to the rest of the network.

 

[Mikey C]

I suspect a lot of the cost and complexity is keeping Euston operational throughout the work. It could well be cheaper and quicker to close the station for a year or so that it could be knocked down and totally rebuilt but that would be far too disruptive to the rest of the network.

Especially when the current station is horrendously overcrowded at times already, which limits how much you can close off at a time.

 

[HSTEd]

Well I guess we would need to have a discussion over what "operational" means.

If you cleared the site to the point that it was just uncovered platforms, and the only structure was a tent covering the gate line, would that be "operational"?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What I'd like to see is a full breakdown of these costs, including a distinction between costs that would have been incurred anyway, and costs that have arisen from changes to the specification since the original design.

They never give away any detail not even to National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee

 

[NotATrainspott]

Euston will remain impossible to deliver until the government finally understands that the area surrounding the station is ripe for redevelopment, and market forces are screaming out for it. The idea that protected sightlines are so important that the government must spend literal tens of billions of pounds maintaining them is absurd. Similarly, there's a price tag associated with keeping listed buildings or conservation areas around. In the centre of London at such an important transport node, the cost of these policies will be as high as it can possibly be. Is it really worth it?

The best Euston is the simplest Euston and that's one which avoids the need for all that expensive over-site development. Instead you knock down the relatively small buildings either side of the station and free up the land for tall new builds with totally standard foundations. HS2 and the rest of the improvements will increase land values here, and releasing the constraints on building height and general redevelopment will unlock even higher values. HS2 or the government might need to spend tens of billions on buying up properties at CPO rates, but the land will be worth quite a lot more after the station is done, so it doesn't actually cost anything at all. The only financial cost is the short-term loss of rental income, but that can be covered by the future increase in rental values. Otherwise it's just the permanent loss of the existing buildings, but in most cases this cost is irrelevant. If it's that valuable, then with all the money it should be more than possible to physically move the existing building or to rebuild it like-for-like. We're not talking about St Paul's Cathedral here.

The city is grinding to a halt because no one is willing to embrace redevelopment of existing desirable buildings. The city has now largely run out of easy brownfield ex-industrial land where there are no (politically relevant) residents to complain about being CPOed. If we aren't going to demolish the buildings around Euston now, then when will they? Will a Victorian terrace end up existing for the next 100, 200, 300 years? If we're going to knock it down at some point in the undefined future, then why not knock it down now? I'm pretty confident that St Paul's will be around in 1000 years but I don't see why it would be a good idea to keep around some Victorian speculative sprawl or a few council blocks!

Also, we're only in this state today because we don't tax based on property value properly. If people had to pay some % of their property value each year as their council tax, then large swathes of London property would be economically worthless to anyone but a developer planning to bulldoze them. If we're not going to fix the tax system to apply proper incentives, then we need to do CPO to essentially do the same thing. It is very expensive to allow a lucky few people to continue living in increasingly dilapidated and/or ahistorical properties in the middle of a major world city.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Big empty concrete box

I disagree. This will be the highest profile trail terminus in a leading global city and if you look down Euston Road to the East, there's no reason why it could not have a lifetime in excess of 150 years, and I doubt we'll build another brand new terminus in a London this century. Let's not embarrass our generation by chucking up a glorified East German nuclear bunker. Not saying it needs to be Sagrada Familia but with trains either.

temporarily divert half the current station platforms into the new box

If the majority of Manchester and West Mids passengers transfer to HS2 then at least for a few years you might be able to run a very stripped back WCML service out of perhaps 6 platforms, meaning you can close half the station at a time.

 

[Wolfie]

Euston will remain impossible to deliver until the government finally understands that the area surrounding the station is ripe for redevelopment, and market forces are screaming out for it. The idea that protected sightlines are so important that the government must spend literal tens of billions of pounds maintaining them is absurd. Similarly, there's a price tag associated with keeping listed buildings or conservation areas around. In the centre of London at such an important transport node, the cost of these policies will be as high as it can possibly be. Is it really worth it?

The best Euston is the simplest Euston and that's one which avoids the need for all that expensive over-site development. Instead you knock down the relatively small buildings either side of the station and free up the land for tall new builds with totally standard foundations. HS2 and the rest of the improvements will increase land values here, and releasing the constraints on building height and general redevelopment will unlock even higher values. HS2 or the government might need to spend tens of billions on buying up properties at CPO rates, but the land will be worth quite a lot more after the station is done, so it doesn't actually cost anything at all. The only financial cost is the short-term loss of rental income, but that can be covered by the future increase in rental values. Otherwise it's just the permanent loss of the existing buildings, but in most cases this cost is irrelevant. If it's that valuable, then with all the money it should be more than possible to physically move the existing building or to rebuild it like-for-like. We're not talking about St Paul's Cathedral here.

The city is grinding to a halt because no one is willing to embrace redevelopment of existing desirable buildings. The city has now largely run out of easy brownfield ex-industrial land where there are no (politically relevant) residents to complain about being CPOed. If we aren't going to demolish the buildings around Euston now, then when will they? Will a Victorian terrace end up existing for the next 100, 200, 300 years? If we're going to knock it down at some point in the undefined future, then why not knock it down now? I'm pretty confident that St Paul's will be around in 1000 years but I don't see why it would be a good idea to keep around some Victorian speculative sprawl or a few council blocks!

Also, we're only in this state today because we don't tax based on property value properly. If people had to pay some % of their property value each year as their council tax, then large swathes of London property would be economically worthless to anyone but a developer planning to bulldoze them. If we're not going to fix the tax system to apply proper incentives, then we need to do CPO to essentially do the same thing. It is very expensive to allow a lucky few people to continue living in increasingly dilapidated and/or ahistorical properties in the middle of a major world city.

Talk about the price of everything and the value of nothing. Economics is not a God! Quality of life is at least as important and will become more so in a post-industrial society.

 

[HSTEd]

Given the sightline issues (and the enormous political costs of doing anything about them), I don't think it is feasible to get large scale oversite development at Euston.

Given this, and the impacts such development would have on the design of the station, I can't help feeling that we'd be better off just building the highest capacity terminus we can on the site. That means a full length concourse directly above the platforms, a total rebuild of tube and bus facilities, a subway to Euston Road and possibly even a subway from the north end of the station to Mornington Crescent.

If we can get enough transfer capacity onto the tube (through Crossrail 2 or otherwise) we could consider trying to transfer some other trains into Euston using appropriate tunneling in North London, which would free redevelopment space elsewhere.

 

[Wolfie]

Given the sightline issues (and the enormous political costs of doing anything about them), I don't think it is feasible to get large scale oversite development at Euston.

Given this, and the impacts such development would have on the design of the station, I can't help feeling that we'd be better off just building the highest capacity terminus we can on the site. That means a full length concourse directly above the platforms, a total rebuild of tube and bus facilities, a subway to Euston Road and possibly even a subway from the north end of the station to Mornington Crescent.

If we can get enough transfer capacity onto the tube (through Crossrail 2 or otherwise) we could consider trying to transfer some other trains into Euston using appropriate tunneling in North London, which would free redevelopment space elsewhere.

Pragmatic and sensible... Out of curiosity how far is "the north end" to Mornington Crescent? I'm really not sure about that suggestion not least because the only access there is two very much less than reliable lifts. I believe that it's a listed building too which has limited previous changes.

Oh talking of political costs don't forget who the local MP is. His personal share of the vote at the last election plummeted because of his stance on the Middle East. The last thing he'll want to do is pee off his own constituents further.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A good demonstration that delaying expensive projects to save money always ends up costing more in the long run.

Amen. Shockingly nobody in government understands this!

 

[Wolfie]

Amen. Shockingly nobody in government understands this!

People in Government, or at least the Civil Service, do understand that very well and indeed where appropriate include costing information in advice to Ministers. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, politicians are prone to take decisions for political reasons!

 

[NotATrainspott]

Talk about the price of everything and the value of nothing. Economics is not a God! Quality of life is at least as important and will become more so in a post-industrial society.

Quality of life is why we need to embrace redevelopment. The existing buildings are crap.

Our current policy of not allowing redevelopment means there's essentially a cap on the number of rentable sq ft available. You can't add much more sq ft without knocking down a building and replacing it with a taller and bigger one. Permitted development might allow some side return and dormer extensions but it doesn't solve the problem.

Living standards are increasing and so people expect more sq ft per person. If there is a cap on the rentable sq ft available, then all you get is:

1. Fewer people get to live in the area and benefit from local facilities.
2. The same or more people get to live in the area but by sacrificing how much space they have per person.

In many areas of London we are seeing 2 happen today. We are essentially reinventing slums and single ends in the form of HMOs. Young people can't afford to live in London without sharing with multiple other people. Landlords can make a lot of money splitting up properties into smaller units for those who are really desperate.

Central London is one of the areas most suited to building new properties. Nowhere else in the country provides the same connectivity for people to live without ever needing to own or drive a car. The city already has a dense public transport network, and adding more demand is a brilliant way to make the economic case for capacity improvements. The more people who live around Euston the more you can justify building new Tube and Crossrail lines through it, with the added bonus of connectivity with other rail services at the mainline station.

Redevelopment doesn't mean building crap new buildings. It would be totally fine for the new buildings to be clad in nice materials and with nice shapes for windows and so on. They could be made to be clad in Regency-style stucco or traditional London brick and sash windows. The interiors could be made with faux fireplaces and cornicing. The point is that the existing buildings have to be demolished to provide more room, and that means existing owner-occupiers will see a bit of disruption and some sightlines will be lost.

If there are specific heritage buildings to be kept, then the new density around them helps a lot with making the financial case to retain and improve them. If there are more people living around and they have more money left over after paying their rent, then they'll be more likely to go to theatres and other valuable public venues. Maybe the new developments could include brand new theatres and public venues like pubs? Or the old ones could be kept around and improved.

 

[YorkshireBear]

People in Government, or at least the Civil Service, do understand that very well and indeed where appropriate include costing information in advice to Ministers. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, politicians are prone to take decisions for political reasons!

Yes I was more referring to ministers than the civil service!

 

[Topological]

Talk about the price of everything and the value of nothing. Economics is not a God! Quality of life is at least as important and will become more so in a post-industrial society.

As an economist, I should state that economics includes quality of life in the objective function. It is finance which only considers the financial elements.

I do believe that the protection of sight lines is not something we can hold indefinitely. I am not sure the cost to the quality of life is high enough to offset the benefits so many others would enjoy if the development money was used for social projects.

 

[camflyer]

Amen. Shockingly nobody in government understands this!

I'm sure they do understand it - just that when there is economic and political pressure to reduce spending in the current budget cycle, any decision which will increase costs in a few years time, by when there will be another minister in their position, it becomes "someone else's problem"

It's more of an argument that long term infrastructure projects should be taken out of the hands of here today gone tomorrow politicians. PM Sunak unilaterally scrapped Phase 2a of HS2 without any debate or vote despite it having Royal Assent.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm sure they do understand it - just that when there is economic and political pressure to reduce spending in the current budget cycle, any decision which will increase costs in a few years time, by when there will be another minister in their position, it becomes "someone else's problem"

It's more of an argument that long term infrastructure projects should be taken out of the hands of here today gone tomorrow politicians. PM Sunak unilaterally scrapped Phase 2a of HS2 without any debate or vote despite it having Royal Assent.

I am sure many do. But in certain enough to make it an issue do not.

No debate or vote, or consultation or even discussion with the DfT, transport secretary, HS2 minister, HS2 company, national infrastructure commission or any other body involved. Agreed that sort of decision making should definitely not be in the hands of here today gone tomorrow politicians.

 

[JamesT]

I am sure many do. But in certain enough to make it an issue do not.

No debate or vote, or consultation or even discussion with the DfT, transport secretary, HS2 minister, HS2 company, national infrastructure commission or any other body involved. Agreed that sort of decision making should definitely not be in the hands of here today gone tomorrow politicians.

If not the politicians, who should be accountable to the public for spending/wasting public money? That's the whole point of them.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm sure they do understand it - just that when there is economic and political pressure to reduce spending in the current budget cycle, any decision which will increase costs in a few years time, by when there will be another minister in their position, it becomes "someone else's problem"

It's more of an argument that long term infrastructure projects should be taken out of the hands of here today gone tomorrow politicians. PM Sunak unilaterally scrapped Phase 2a of HS2 without any debate or vote despite it having Royal Assent.

The problem there is when the total commitments amount to more than the total budget currently available. HMT rarely if ever will give more money. Inevitably prioritising and savings measures (often unrealistic) take place even though it is known that the total overall cost will increase.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If not the politicians, who should be accountable to the public for spending/wasting public money? That's the whole point of them.

I'm talking about the unilateral cancelling by Rishi without any checks and balances.

 

[Starmill]

The problem there is when the total commitments amount to more than the total budget currently available. HMT rarely if ever will give more money. Inevitably prioritising and savings measures (often unrealistic) take place even though it is known that the total overall cost will increase.

The previous government were masters of taking decisions which raised costs while pretending otherwise, or which gave a saving or no change last fiscal year, but a big rise in cost this and next fiscal year, as well. They appeared to be more successful at pulling the wool over some eyes about certain areas than others but with hindsight a lot of these decisions were obviously taken in bad faith and just lied about.

We may find further examples which haven't come to light yet where additional costs were loaded into the fiscal year after next, and the one after that. Once the government is in contract or not in contract for something that's a pretty irreversible decision usually.

 

[HSTEd]

It was entirely within the power of parliament to require that HS2 Phase 2A be built when passing the bill - parliament can do anything after all.

Parliament chose not to do this.

Given the way project costs were spiralling, I doubt forcing the completion of Phase 2A would be in the interest of the railway as a whole - either financially or politically.

 

[Wolfie]

The previous government were masters of taking decisions which raised costs while pretending otherwise, or which gave a saving or no change last fiscal year, but a big rise in cost this and next fiscal year, as well. They appeared to be more successful at pulling the wool over some eyes about certain areas than others but with hindsight a lot of these decisions were obviously taken in bad faith and just lied about.

We may find further examples which haven't come to light yet where additional costs were loaded into the fiscal year after next, and the one after that. Once the government is in contract or not in contract for something that's a pretty irreversible decision usually.

You may think that but l couldn't possibly comment.

 

[HSTEd]

Pragmatic and sensible... Out of curiosity how far is "the north end" to Mornington Crescent? I'm really not sure about that suggestion not least because the only access there is two very much less than reliable lifts. I believe that it's a listed building too which has limited previous changes.

Oh talking of political costs don't forget who the local MP is. His personal share of the vote at the last election plummeted because of his stance on the Middle East. The last thing he'll want to do is pee off his own constituents further.

Depending on where the north end of the HS2 station ends up, something about 480-500m.

Wouldn't the subway connect at the bottom of the lifts, not on the surface?
We wouldn't necessarily need to do anything to the surface building at all.