Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
On the subject of cost per mile, here is the reason why its a not a good measure and also some supporting evidence of why speed is not the main factor.
These are the costs per mile of three of the four phases of hs2 that were still being progressed at cancellation - the estimated cost of phase 1 has increased since. All costs in 2019 prices:
Phase
Cost (2019 prices)
Distance (miles)
Cost per mile
Percentage distance
Percentage distance
Notes
Upper bound
Upper bound
<=225kmh
360kmh+
Phase 1
£53,600,000,000
140
£383,000,000
14
55
4 stations and extensive tunnelling (vs Funding envelope)
Phase 2a
£7,200,000,000
36
£200,000,000
5.4
94.6
No stations and limited tunnelling (vs IRP provision)
Phase 2b (W)
£19,000,000,000
39
£485,000,000
49
51
2 stations and extensive tunnelling (vs IRP provision)
Phase 2a was a bit simpler to work out the percentages of the sections of speed, but its roughly correct for the others. It wont match completely for phase1 since some significant sections are 300-320.
And yes, those costs per mile are still very high, what I'm trying to demonstrate is that for different phases of hs2, the cost per mile fluctuates quite significantly and the phase with the highest percentage of 360+ alignment is cheapest by almost half other phases. The differences are rolling stock, stations, depots, inner-city tunnelling.
Note, for phase 2b (W), the government removed Golborne, most of which was 360+ alignment, but kept the costs for enabling the services that would use it north of Preston. Government still intended Golborne or alternative at time of cancellation, but for some reason took out the benefits, left some of the costs in phase 2b (w).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Tbh I'm not convinced that Govt are fit to organise transport projects, they're just too disinterested.
I'm not sure how else funds could be raised, but it needs serious thought.
Govt. has a firmly entrenched belief that the economy must be top priority, in order that transport projects can be afforded.
However, almost everyone uses transport these days to get to work, for at work purposes, for leisure purposes, and for shopping etc.
We could do a lot worse than to adopt a doctrine that says Transport must come first, and if it's done properly, then a prosperous economy will follow.
Part of getting government interested might be to ensure the public understand that infrastructure has a return, its not all cost. Aligning to goals on housing would also be good.
We perhaps need increased devolution in the regions of England, something I was against until recently.
Part of getting government interested might be to ensure the public understand that infrastructure has a return, its not all cost. Aligning to goals on housing would also be good.
We perhaps need increased devolution in the regions of England, something I was against until recently.
Between Rushmore, Hart and Basingstoke and Dean (the likely new North Hampshire unitary council) because of the charge in housing targets set by national government between now and 2043 will have to provide 15,000 additional houses beyond the previous targets.
With several all the stations between Farnborough Main and Basingstoke being within this area, then development of a rail scheme to deliver additional capacity on this corridor withs apart to be worth considering given the potential of a increase in population of around 33,000 people within access of these stations.
With such an increase in housing then there's probably a.case to be had to consider if (say)Southern Approach to Heathrow (Calling at all stations between Basingstoke and Woking) is just
Between Rushmore, Hart and Basingstoke and Dean (the likely new North Hampshire unitary council) because of the charge in housing targets set by national government between now and 2043 will have to provide 15,000 additional houses beyond the previous targets.
With several all the stations between Farnborough Main and Basingstoke being within this area, then development of a rail scheme to deliver additional capacity on this corridor withs apart to be worth considering given the potential of a increase in population of around 33,000 people within access of these stations.
With such an increase in housing then there's probably a.case to be had to consider if (say)Southern Approach to Heathrow (Calling at all stations between Basingstoke and Woking) is just
Good thing about Heathrow Southern is you could get Heathrow Airport to pay for most of it. Its another project that's been off and on and yet the benefits are pretty large, such as, as you say, the benefit for providing infrastructure for housing in North Hampshire. Then there would be capacity gains for the line into Waterloo, connectivity to both the airport, West London and Old Oak Common, reduced pressure on the M25 and roads to the airport.
I suspect it comes down to one of the factors mentioned earlier:
Lack of Long-Term Strategy: A lack of consistent government policy and a reliable "pipeline" of projects means the supply chain cannot invest in skills or innovation, reducing efficiency.
Good thing about Heathrow Southern is you could get Heathrow Airport to pay for most of it. Its another project that's been off and on and yet the benefits are pretty large, such as, as you say, the benefit for providing infrastructure for housing in North Hampshire. Then there would be capacity gains for the line into Waterloo, connectivity to both the airport, West London and Old Oak Common, reduced pressure on the M25 and roads to the airport.
I suspect it comes down to one of the factors mentioned earlier:
ThinkLabour is a think tank working at the heart of British politics to support the Labour movement with research, strategy, and policy development.
www.labourtogether.uk
Basically suggesting that we need to do consultations as problem solving exercises rather than as either defence against or collection of evidence and arguments for a judicial review.
I can't help but think that the UK's adversarial system also basically describes what's wrong with "Treasury Brain". They essentially don't trust or dismiss the economic case for stuff because they expect the organisations who want to build things to over estimate benefits and hide costs. The net result is that we don't do anything (which has a cost) and when we do it the funding structure makes it cost far more than it should.
Really the organisation funding should be on the hook for the costs and responsible for delivery. They would see both sides of the ledger and actually make things cost less, basically far more infrastructure should be built by mayors and they should get more of their funding locally.
ThinkLabour is a think tank working at the heart of British politics to support the Labour movement with research, strategy, and policy development.
www.labourtogether.uk
Basically suggesting that we need to do consultations as problem solving exercises rather than as either defence against or collection of evidence and arguments for a judicial review.
I can't help but think that the UK's adversarial system also basically describes what's wrong with "Treasury Brain". They essentially don't trust or dismiss the economic case for stuff because they expect the organisations who want to build things to over estimate benefits and hide costs. The net result is that we don't do anything (which has a cost) and when we do it the funding structure makes it cost far more than it should.
Really the organisation funding should be on the hook for the costs and responsible for delivery. They would see both sides of the ledger and actually make things cost less, basically far more infrastructure should be built by mayors and they should get more of their funding locally.
I think another factor is the treasury assuming costs are underestimated. So the treasury add more to cover the optimism. This provides an incentive to those working out an estimate to reduce it accordingly. I certainly saw this in my IT career being told to reduce an estimate so we got the work and not to worry about going over.....
Given the political nature of some of the comments at the TSC session this thread covers, I don't hold out a lot of hope for this. Government/Alexander want to be seen to be doing something and leaks have incorrectly blamed specs on Cameron's government.
The last estimate given by the government is £66bn in 2019 prices https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hs2-6-monthly-report-to-parliament-december-2024. Since then, government have been waiting on Mark Wild's reset. All headline figures have included rolling stock since 2013, so would be a little odd for them to suddenly drop that for one estimate.
I believe the estimate includes the 2.2bn+ writedown for cancellation of phase 2 too - government now refers to a total programme cost.
So you are saying that the older figure should be used as it's the most recent figure given by the government? Is there any reason to doubt the New Civil Engineer figure?
Most? Let's stick to European comparators since they have similar economies, but even if they do are the new station builds innercity? Can you give an example and we can check what exactly is the difference station wise?
The smallest station on HS2 phase 1 is interchange. If you look at the standard build of a Spanish HS station, its 2 400m platforms and a basic building. Interchange is 4 platforms, a new automated transit to the NEC, International station and airport plus road enhancements for the station. Do any of the comparators have a new terminus station with additional space for at least 6 400m platforms on some of the most expensive land in Europe with the addition of new approaches to those platforms? Any of them have a 6 platform underground station with 8 new platforms on an existing railway? Any of them have an additional 7 platform terminus in the middle of a city with the associated approaches?
My point was not that the stations are necessarily comparable, but that even once every station is taken out the cost per km is still higher than European HSR lines where the cost figure hasn't been stripped down to "plain line only". If there were cost figures for all HSR lines with stations stripped out, HS2 would still be the most expensive.
LA will use existing tracks as a temporary workaround, the cost of reaching LA and a new station is still included as the current lines are slow and take a large diversion.
Precisely the right question to ask. Not "why is HS2 expensive", but "why is UK infrastructure expensive". Once we've understood that, then we can look at the specifics of problems around HS2.
So you are saying that the older figure should be used as it's the most recent figure given by the government? Is there any reason to doubt the New Civil Engineer figure?
I already explained why. There is no public record or the NCE figure other than a report based on an Foi response of when Wild first became CEO. The Dec 2024 update was later.
That doesn't mean the reset figure might be larger, we shall hear in a few days.
My point was not that the stations are necessarily comparable, but that even once every station is taken out the cost per km is still higher than European HSR lines where the cost figure hasn't been stripped down to "plain line only". If there were cost figures for all HSR lines with stations stripped out, HS2 would still be the most expensive.
And my original point was that the magnitude of the difference was out by a rather significant factor. Once you have a more comparable scope, then you can make a better assessment of the differences and other factors leading to cost. You'll see above I said that it's around 4x the cost of French LGV with phase2a the better comparator. Ewr Bedford-Cambridge would also be one of the highest costs per mile compared to high speed lines for a 100mph alignment, which ties into your 4th point.
OK, I see there were going to union station. Getting to Burbank is where the expense is.
My original point (going for the record of saying "original point") was that they were buildingg the cheap easy bits first, hs2 is building the most expensive, complex bits first.
We also have the highest cost per MW for nuclear construction. It's something that really needs addressing else we will find it too expensive to build anything.
OK, I see there were going to union station. Getting to Burbank is where the expense is.
My original point (going for the record of saying "original point") was that they were buildingg the cheap easy bits first, hs2 is building the most expensive, complex bits first.
But they're not. I don't know the Los Angeles end, but I've lived in and around San Francisco. It's going to use the Caltrain tracks into SF, so it's not going to be high speed there - it'll be conventional speed (79mph) and have to fit in around the Caltrain service north of San Jose.
All that's needed on that leg is electrification (already done) and some high level platforms for where it'll stop (I would guess quite possibly only SF and San Jose, and perhaps Millbrae for SF airport)
It's not a fantastic example of a rail project anyway so I wouldn't be using it as a model. It too is massively over budget and controversial and far from universally popular.
(It's a shame Caltrain isn't British because otherwise there'd be some fantastic threads on here about the door layout on their new stock - it has doors for both low and high level platforms)
But they're not. I don't know the Los Angeles end, but I've lived in and around San Francisco. It's going to use the Caltrain tracks into SF, so it's not going to be high speed there - it'll be conventional speed (79mph) and have to fit in around the Caltrain service north of San Jose.
All that's needed on that leg is electrification (already done) and some high level platforms for where it'll stop (I would guess quite possibly only SF and San Jose, and perhaps Millbrae for SF airport)
It's not a fantastic example of a rail project anyway so I wouldn't be using it as a model. It too is massively over budget and controversial and far from universally popular.
(It's a shame Caltrain isn't British because otherwise there'd be some fantastic threads on here about the door layout on their new stock - it has doors for both low and high level platforms)
And my original point was that the magnitude of the difference was out by a rather significant factor. Once you have a more comparable scope, then you can make a better assessment of the differences and other factors leading to cost. You'll see above I said that it's around 4x the cost of French LGV with phase2a the better comparator. Ewr Bedford-Cambridge would also be one of the highest costs per mile compared to high speed lines for a 100mph alignment, which ties into your 4th point.
Well my point was less about the magnitude of the difference and more pointing out that the difference is clearly there even once you control for things like stations.
We also have the highest cost per MW for nuclear construction. It's something that really needs addressing else we will find it too expensive to build anything.
Yes, I agree with this. Unfortunately especially when it comes to nuclear you see a lot of "can you believe they're spending £X amount on wildlife protection?" vs "can you believe people want to reduce wildlife protection when we're nature-depleted?" and there's very little in the way of actually talking to and understanding the other side, instead of just creating a strawman and talking to that. Of course while there are undoubtedly issues that cause high costs for both nuclear and rail projects they will also have their own unique issues and challenges.
Being reported in Construction Enquirer this morning that the HS2 reset will take until December whilst Wilde and the team evaluate the impact of reducing speed.
HS2 chief Mark Wild has pushed back publication of his big project reset until the end of the year to explore whether billions can be saved by stripping out complexity from the railway.
The reset had been expected to set a fresh budget and delivery timetable in March. But Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander intervened and ordered HS2 to test whether a simpler railway specification could cut costs and get services running sooner.
Top of the hit list is HS2’s original 360km/h design speed.
Ministers believe dropping to a proven high-speed standard of 300km/h to 320km/h could slash risk in signalling, controls, commissioning and train testing while having only a limited impact on journey times. Wild said the new plan would now be completed by the “end of this year” in a fresh update on the HS2 project’s progress.
He said: “We’re very, very clear of our priorities in the next four years, and we’re on track to deliver the baseline schedule by the end of this year.
“As we’ve always said, it’s taking a couple of years to do this.
“Why is that? Well, we’ve got to get it right, because this reset will be the last time that we do it to the end of the job.”
Wild added: “I am determined to explore every opportunity to remove the over-specification and complexity from this project to bring down costs and delivery timelines.
“This will ensure the updated cost and schedule estimates are robust, rather than rush the process and risk publishing figures that we do not trust.”
The geometry is already set and cant see how signalling costs will be significantly lower such that costs will be billions lower. What they surely need to avoid is anything that further delays commercial opening.
ThinkLabour is a think tank working at the heart of British politics to support the Labour movement with research, strategy, and policy development.
www.labourtogether.uk
Notwithstanding the political affiliation, this report is an insightful look into how Britain's planning system so consistently gets gummed up in a procedural quagmire, and how it would be possible to change it to look more like other countries' systems of collaborative problem-solving.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I sincerely hope that the reduction in design speed for HS2 does not go ahead. It will be detrimental in the long run, and the time spent delaying the delivery of the project eat up any of the benefits of the time saved in reducing the complexity of delivery.
We took it a little bit further on to the 400 kph or 250 mph for two reasons. One is because we learned very strongly from people that we respect, like Guillaume Pepy in France, that they had wished that they had not designed to the limit of the day because the technology continues to advance. They warned us very clearly not to design to the limit and always leave something in hand either for future generations or simply because engineering systems work better when they are not running on the limit. There are examples around the world where people have run things on the limit and they go poorly in the end. But we did not, dogmatically, at any time design to that top speed. That was where it was sensible, practical and gave what we considered in our judgment an acceptable balance of minimising journey time and, therefore, benefits to the cities that High Speed 2 would serve, against the cost and sustainability impacts.
I sincerely hope that the reduction in design speed for HS2 does not go ahead. It will be detrimental in the long run, and the time spent delaying the delivery of the project eat up any of the benefits of the time saved in reducing the complexity of delivery.
The laws of aerodynamics will not change. The power requirement for high speed trains will remain proportional to the cube of the speed and the total energy used will remain proportional to the square of the speed. This should have been clear in 2011 as it is now and they should not have repeated the mistake made with Concorde where a supersonic passenger plane was designed instead of a planes carrying more passengers and using less energy to reduce costs. The speed of the Shanghai Maglev was reduced from over 400kph to 300kph because it was using too much electric power. There is no point in building HS2 tracks and trains for speeds any higher than 300kph.
The laws of aerodynamics will not change. The power requirement for high speed trains will remain proportional to the cube of the speed and the total energy used will remain proportional to the square of the speed. This should have been clear in 2011 as it is now and they should not have repeated the mistake made with Concorde where a supersonic passenger plane was designed instead of a planes carrying more passengers and using less energy to reduce costs. The speed of the Shanghai Maglev was reduced from over 400kph to 300kph because it was using too much electric power. There is no point in building HS2 tracks and trains for speeds any higher than 300kph.
Concorde was a dead end because airplanes have to carry their fuel, so there's a direct trade-off between speed and capacity. But electric trains do not have that issue, as long as OHLE has the capacity, you can go faster. If we succeed in decarbonising electricity production, where's the downside?
Why should the limit be 300kph? Many railways around the world run at faster speeds, are they wrong?
This should have been clear in 2011 as it is now and they should not have repeated the mistake made with Concorde where a supersonic passenger plane was designed instead of a planes carrying more passengers and using less energy to reduce costs.
Concorde is hardly a fair comparison because a 360kph train can carry just as many passengers as a 300kph one and the energy requirements to go an extra 60kph are proportionally nowhere near as much as going from Mach 0.92 to Mach 2.
The speed of the Shanghai Maglev was reduced from over 400kph to 300kph because it was using too much electric power.
The Shanghai maglev is not a high speed rail network and I don't think it's comparable to HS2 either. It's so short that a maximum speed reduction only loses like 50 seconds of travel time. On HS2 a substantial reduction of speed has real implications for how many trains you need to run the service (rolling stock requirements, staffing, depot sizes etc), in addition to making it less attractive for travel.
This is a much smaller country with much shorter distances than China. The longest non-stop distance on HS2 is about 150km between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange.
The laws of aerodynamics will not change. The power requirement for high speed trains will remain proportional to the cube of the speed and the total energy used will remain proportional to the square of the speed. This should have been clear in 2011 as it is now and they should not have repeated the mistake made with Concorde where a supersonic passenger plane was designed instead of a planes carrying more passengers and using less energy to reduce costs. The speed of the Shanghai Maglev was reduced from over 400kph to 300kph because it was using too much electric power. There is no point in building HS2 tracks and trains for speeds any higher than 300kph.
Power costs are gonna go down though as we upgrade our grid infrastructure. It's just electricity, we have the ability to produce more of it than ever - over the long term they'll become neglible.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is a much smaller country with much shorter distances than China. The longest non-stop distance on HS2 is about 150km between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange.
Speed is capacity, though. The Birmingham-London rail corridor will certainly eat up all the passenger seats made available. And in the future, once the rest of the intercity high speed network opens up, that higher speed will mean more capacity relief on the other main lines.
The geometry is already set and cant see how signalling costs will be significantly lower such that costs will be billions lower. What they surely need to avoid is anything that further delays commercial opening.
Well 300km/h would let them run testing on HS1 rather than sending trains to a hyper specialised facility abroad or forcing early completion of part of HS2
It would also allow the relaxation of quality control on track and other equipment.
Well 300km/h would let them run testing on HS1 rather than sending trains to a hyper specialised facility abroad or forcing early completion of part of HS2
It would also allow the relaxation of quality control on track and other equipment.
That time saved is already being eaten up by the delays to the project over the decision-making process, though. The costs aren't gonna be recouped over the long run either, because you'll be lowering passenger capacity on the line.
Only if turnarounds are bust. The timetable is based on 330km/h. Lowering the speed to 320 (not saying I necessarily agree with it) will have a negligible impact.
Only if turnarounds are bust. The timetable is based on 330km/h. Lowering the speed to 320 (not saying I necessarily agree with it) will have a negligible impact.
I don't think that's comparing like with like. The line is designed for 400km/h, with 330 in timetable use and 360 permitted for catchup. Lowering to 320 is ambiguous, but I think it means lowering from 400, so the timetable speed is then 250km/h.
I don't think that's comparing like with like. The line is designed for 400km/h, with 330 in timetable use and 360 permitted for catchup. Lowering to 320 is ambiguous, but I think it means lowering from 400, so the timetable speed is then 250km/h.
My reading is that they're looking at dropping the initial service speed of the line to the 300-320kph which would allow leaning on French experience and potentially infrastructure to test HS2 trains. LGV Est has 320kph sections, is signalled with ETCS L2 and electrified with 25KV 50Hz AC OLE. Whether it's worth taking a HS2 train over there to test it, I suspect not. But it would speed up the commissioning process considerably if they can calibrate the tests against a known benchmark.
There would then be nothing stopping the operator from seeking certification for the full 360/400km/h at a later date, once the line is fully bedded in.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well 300km/h would let them run testing on HS1 rather than sending trains to a hyper specialised facility abroad or forcing early completion of part of HS2
Only if the HS2 stock were fitted with the TVM equipment and emulation software for display on the ETCS DMI. Or HS1 fitted with ETCS L2 overlay, which is in the pipeline but probably not going to come before HS2.
It would be very interesting to know, if it's going to happen anyway, what additional costs would arise from bringing that forward by a few years. I suspect very little, and given the current rate of progress with HS2, possibly not by all that many years either.
Of course, if they then decide to test HS2 trains on HS1, or even just do mileage accumulation there, I'm sure they'll learn to regret the missing HS2-HS1 link...
My reading is that they're looking at dropping the initial service speed of the line to the 300-320kph which would allow leaning on French experience and potentially infrastructure to test HS2 trains. LGV Est has 320kph sections, is signalled with ETCS L2 and electrified with 25KV 50Hz AC OLE. Whether it's worth taking a HS2 train over there to test it, I suspect not. But it would speed up the commissioning process considerably if they can calibrate the tests against a known benchmark.
There would then be nothing stopping the operator from seeking certification for the full 360/400km/h at a later date, once the line is fully bedded in.
Except mention is made of altering the signalling etc. down to lower speeds. If the infrastructure is limited in that way, it's going to be much harder to return it to the currently planned speeds.
Only if turnarounds are bust. The timetable is based on 330km/h. Lowering the speed to 320 (not saying I necessarily agree with it) will have a negligible impact.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
