Could HS2 have been planned and built in the 1980s?

[Helvellyn]

What if a 1990s HS2 was actually more upgrades of the ECML? InterCity was already showing that London-Glasgow was competitive with the new Class 91s and Mk 4s versus Class 87s/90s and Mark 3s on the West Coast. So could an ECML upgrade have seen London-Scotland traffic on the ECML, with the WCML focused on London to Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool/Preston (say the latter extending alternatively to Blackpool/Carlisle)?

Four tracking around Welwyn, Newark flat crossing gone, Doncaster diversion?

 

[Bevan Price]

With Thatcher as PM, there was no chance of anything so expensive as HS2 being authorised. Yes - a few less expensive electrification schemes did get through, but HS2 - No chance? Moreover it was not a Motorway.

 

[Energy]

With Thatcher as PM, there was no chance of anything so expensive as HS2 being authorised. Yes - a few less expensive electrification schemes did get through, but HS2 - No chance? Moreover it was not a Motorway.

It probably would have, but only if privately funded.

Thatcher didn't like trains but she tended to leave them be, she was happy for the euro tunnel to go ahead but it was privately funded.

 

[mike57]

Four tracking around Welwyn, Newark flat crossing gone, Doncaster diversion?

The other sections which would benefit from upgrade are the Durham section, Morpeth, and the section between Berwick and Dunbar, but then you are into similar scale of work to WCML upgrades.

I would have created a new route which roughly follows the M1, with an spur to Birmingham, then running between Derby and Nottingham towards the Sheffield area, before splitting to Manchester and Leeds. Manchester and Leeds improvements and rejoin improved classic lines northwards out of Manchester and north east out of Leeds to York. This route would have the benefit of covering a good proportion of the major urban areas. But that bird has well and truly flown.

I know the current route was chosen on the basis of cost benefit etc after various studies. but if this work was of a similar accuracy to the cost projections then it calls into question the whole process. I struggle with the concept that the data and inputs to the route decision was good quality given the huge errors in the costing that have emerged. To me that calls into question the whole process including route decisions and the 400kph v 300kph spec

 

[The Ham]

I know the current route was chosen on the basis of cost benefit etc after various studies. but if this work was of a similar accuracy to the cost projections then it calls into question the whole process. I struggle with the concept that the data and inputs to the route decision was good quality given the huge errors in the costing that have emerged. To me that calls into question the whole process including route decisions and the 400kph v 300kph spec

If I told you, based on my numbers, that you could have A for £4 or B for £6 and then it was discovered that it was actually going to cost you £7 for A, how much would you really trust me to be able to deliver B for £6 (or even £7)?

Generally, as long as the numbers are based on the same assumptions, if A goes up by (say) 75% then it's likely that B would also go up by about 75%. Even if it was only a 33.33% increase (so less than half the increase of A) that would still mean that B was £8 and so still more costly than A, (even though the increase was far less, which isn't that likely).

 

[HSTEd]

Generally, as long as the numbers are based on the same assumptions, if A goes up by (say) 75% then it's likely that B would also go up by about 75%. Even if it was only a 33.33% increase (so less than half the increase of A) that would still mean that B was £8 and so still more costly than A, (even though the increase was far less, which isn't that likely).

Assuming of course that the relative importance of each assumption was the same in both projects and that optimisation does not alter the relative importance of the assumptions made, which seems rather unlikely.

Given the whistleblower reports about land purchase costs I am extremely skeptical that that is true.
I think it far more likely that the project design was distorted by optimisation based on badly flawed data for some, but not all, costs.

 

[The Ham]

Assuming of course that the relative importance of each assumption was the same in both projects and that optimisation does not alter the relative importance of the assumptions made, which seems rather unlikely.

Given the whistleblower reports about land purchase costs I am extremely skeptical that that is true.
I think it far more likely that the project design was distorted by optimisation based on badly flawed data for some, but not all, costs.

Land purchase costs are unlikely to be that different depending on the route, unless one was much more rural than the other which was much more urban.

 

[HSTEd]

Land purchase costs are unlikely to be that different depending on the route, unless one was much more rural than the other which was much more urban.

The optimisation also effects choices of construction strategy (for example the number, size and location of construction compounds), viaduct vs embankment vs tunnel vs surface running and stuff like that.

The amount of land, as an example, that must be purchased can vary wildly from one option to another.