High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[YorkshireBear]

Someone suggested to me on facebook today that we should instead open the Great Central, Derby-Manchester and Tebay to Durham as much better way of achieving HS2. The last one made me bang my head against the table.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Euston Station rush hour, twinned with the Black Hole of Calcutta

 

[digitaltoast]

Besides, unsurprisingly, this being YET ANOTHER Andrew Gilligan story - what's the problem?

Ah, so does that mean that because it's not your chosen journalist or the "correct" report, that it didn't happen? Here, for me, is "the problem" - the bits in bold:

As of earlier this year, the veto — described as a “constitutional aberration” by the Lord Chief Justice — had only been used six times, including to block the release of the Attorney General’s legal advice on the Iraq war and to halt publication of the Prince of Wales’s private letters to ministers.
The report also foreshadowed the project’s major difficulties in keeping control over its budget, saying not enough work had been done to bottom out the project’s true costs and affordability. Since the report was written, HS2’s overall budget has risen by about a third, from £32 billion to £43  billion at 2011 prices.
The document was cleared for release by the Information Commissioner in June, but the Government was due to lodge an appeal to the Information Tribunal last Thursday. That hearing was adjourned at the last minute after Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, and Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, wrote to Mr Cameron warning that the Government was “very likely to lose” and it would be “better to veto now than after an adverse tribunal decision”.
Justifying the “exceptional” use of the veto, the ministers said the publication of the report would create “political and presentational difficulties at a crucial point in the HS2 project’s development”

To quote that film: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

 

[jon0844]

What I said was that the details in the report aren't that damning.

I have no idea why it was considered worth suppressing, nor do I agree with that.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Ah, so does that mean that because it's not your chosen journalist or the "correct" report, that it didn't happen?

No that is not at all what he is saying. He is simply saying a article in an Anti HS2 newspaper from a journalist who has told blatant lies about the project before is not to be trusted 100%.

 

[digitaltoast]

No that is not at all what he is saying. He is simply saying a article in an Anti HS2 newspaper from a journalist who has told blatant lies about the project before is not to be trusted 100%.

We'll only know if they are blatant lies or not if we see the report.

What I said was that the details in the report aren't that damning.
I have no idea why it was considered worth suppressing, nor do I agree with that.

Then there should be no problem seeing the report, right?

So I'm sure you'd support me in wanting the most honest and open thing, bearing in mind it's an absolutely massive amount of our money, which is to publish the report in full rather than using "aberrations of the law" to hide the contents.

Right?

 

[HSTEd]

Except releasing a report that says anything about HS2 other than the official line that it is absolutely amazing tends to be greated by screaming in the press about how it "torpedoes" the business case all by itself.
And frankly it is not a huge sum of money in public policy terms, it is only ~40bn pounds, which is about three months of the current budget deficit.

 

[digitaltoast]

Except releasing a report that says anything about HS2 other than the official line that it is absolutely amazing tends to be greated by screaming in the press about how it "torpedoes" the business case all by itself.

And so? What are you saying there?

And frankly it is not a huge sum of money in public policy terms, it is only ~40bn pounds, which is about three months of the current budget deficit.

Where on earth have you plucked that figure from? The revised figure is at least £50bn, and that's the official spin. You can always at least double a government budget. I know, I know. We've had this discussion before. "This time it'll be different. Because building an huge railway line through lots of houses with compulsory land purchases isn't going to be fraught with unknowns like the Millenium Dome [£789m loss], the Olympics [quadrupled from original budget], IT systems [£billions lost], Edinburgh tram project [10x over?], Cambridgeshire Busway [£88 million to £120–140 million in 2 years]. No. comrades, THIS TIME it will all be different. Don't look over there at all those past mistake. Look over here - a flying pig".

I've believe the "it'll all be different this time" line if there were any evidence for it. The only evidence is opposite.

 

[jon0844]

What about HS1? Seems a fairer comparison?

 

[digitaltoast]

What about HS1? Seems a fairer comparison?

Good point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18733308

Taxpayers have been saddled with a £4.8bn debt from the Channel Tunnel high-speed rail line (HS1) so far, a report by a committee of MPs has said.

The Public Accounts Committee blamed over-optimistic forecasts about the number of passengers using the service.

It predicted that the final bill for the London to Folkestone line would rise to £10.2bn by 2070.

International passenger numbers on HS1 are a third of the original 1995 forecast and two-thirds of the DfT's 1998 forecast, it stated.

Thank you - I'd forgotten about that one!

 

[YorkshireBear]

We'll only know if they are blatant lies or not if we see the report.

I am not referring to the report i said before. Ie not now, i do not know if he is lying now as i have not read the report and have thus not accused him so.

He has told lies time and time again. His favourite one is HS2 will not benefit any of the London Commuters. That is a lie. There are many more. He tells some truths too but some lies which make me question some of his statements. Nothing wrong with that. He also said it will costs £100 billion at least in one report and tried justifying it, again a lie if he replaced will with could that would be very different.

HS1 is a very different beast to HS2. We are comparing construction costs only at this stage and not the operating costs. Which you very quickly changed to. HS2 for example cannot be hit by the illegal immigrant crisis. International Travel is far more uncertain then national travel and so a comparison in terms of operation is not really fair. We are comparing the construction which you actually started comparing before changing to operation.

May i turn the argument back at you. What is your suggestion for tackling rail capacity to the North?

 

[Geezertronic]

Where on earth have you plucked that figure from? The revised figure is at least £50bn, and that's the official spin. You can always at least double a government budget. I know, I know. We've had this discussion before. "This time it'll be different. Because building an huge railway line through lots of houses with compulsory land purchases isn't going to be fraught with unknowns like the Millenium Dome [£789m loss], the Olympics [quadrupled from original budget], IT systems [£billions lost], Edinburgh tram project [10x over?], Cambridgeshire Busway [£88 million to £120–140 million in 2 years]. No. comrades, THIS TIME it will all be different. Don't look over there at all those past mistake. Look over here - a flying pig".

I've believe the "it'll all be different this time" line if there were any evidence for it. The only evidence is opposite.

The HS2 Hybrid Bill for HS2 Phase One lists the estimate of expenses as £19.3bn. Source: http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default...on-West Midlands) - Estimate of expense_0.pdf

 

[digitaltoast]

What about HS1? Seems a fairer comparison

HS1 is a very different beast to HS2.

Feel free to thrash out between you whether a "very different beast" is a "fair comparison".

The HS2 Hybrid Bill for HS2 Phase One lists the estimate of expenses as £19.3bn.

We not having Phase Two?

 

[Geezertronic]

We not having Phase Two?

From: http://hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-cost

The target price for delivering Phase One of HS2 is £17.16 billion pounds (2011 prices). This is the base price of our latest estimate of the cost of Phase One, £15.6bn, plus a contingency allowance of 10%, and also takes into account the design and environmental changes to improve the scheme, many of which were set out in the design refinement consultation that we launched in May 2013
Overall funding for Phase One has been set at £21.4 billion , including contingency of around £5.7bn. We would expect the level of contingency to reduce over time.
Overall funding for Phase Two has been set at £21.2 billion , including contingency of £8.7bn which, as with Phase One, we would expect to reduce over time.
The total for the route is therefore £42.6 billion, including £14.4 billion of contingency.

Still not £50bn

 

[HowardGWR]

This infrastructure announcement has been made by UK Mail.

http://www.postaltechnologyinternational.com/news.php?NewsID=54956

UK Mail will be investing around £20m in automated sortation equipment for the new hub.

Is George Bush a shareholder in UK Mail?

 

[digitaltoast]

From: http://hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-cost
Still not £50bn

Think your clipboard must be running out of memory because it forgot to paste the bit below:

Rolling stock costs (the cost of the trains themselves) are currently estimated at £7.5bn, including £1.7bn of contingency

42.6 + 7.5 = ? Or are you proposing a railway without any trains on it?

 

[JohnB57]

This infrastructure announcement has been made by UK Mail.

http://www.postaltechnologyinternational.com/news.php?NewsID=54956



Is George Bush a shareholder in UK Mail?

At least they quantisatified the cost...

 

[YorkshireBear]

Feel free to thrash out between you whether a "very different beast" is a "fair comparison".

Once again. Very Different Beast refers to the OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS. Fair comparison is with reference to CONSTRUCTION!

I did explain that at least twice previously.....

Again i ask, what would you spend £50 billion on?

 

[NotATrainspott]

42.6 + 7.5 = ? Or are you proposing a railway without any trains on it?

The cost isn't included because the trains will need replacing at a similar time whether we build HS2 or not. The replacement cost for the Pendolini will be very high and very possibly higher than buying HS stock simply because they are both highly complicated - i.e. tilting rather than just going faster - and completely unique in the world.

 

[JohnB57]

The cost isn't included because the trains will need replacing at a similar time whether we build HS2 or not. The replacement cost for the Pendolini will be very high and very possibly higher than buying HS stock simply because they are both highly complicated - i.e. tilting rather than just going faster - and completely unique in the world.

So unless you propose closing the WCML, you will have to both replace the Pendolinos and provide new stock for HS2. So the cost of rolling stock should be included.

 

[YorkshireBear]

So unless you propose closing the WCML, you will have to both replace the Pendolinos and provide new stock for HS2. So the cost of rolling stock should be included.

I do agree with that. As much as i hate that rolling stock is now funded publicly not privately as originally planned it still needs to be added to total cost.

 

[digitaltoast]

Once again. Very Different Beast refers to the OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS. Fair comparison is with reference to CONSTRUCTION!

I did explain that at least twice previously.....

I'm really not sure I'm following your line on this. The whole case for High Speed ("It's not about High Speed") 2 is based on predictions and models of passenger growth and working patterns, including, as touched on before, bizarre assumptions like "people never do any work on the train" and so on.

It doesn't matter whether the build cost is £1m with a "return" of £2m or £50bn with a "return" of £100bn. Both would be admirable. My point is that if you take previous infrastructure projects, including the HS1, they got their predictions badly wrong. You can't take running costs and fares out of the equation and isolate them as a protected case - that's ridiculous!

As for

what would you spend £50 billion on?

In what context? Do you mean "if the country wasn't broke paying off vast amounts of interest and someone handed me £50bn and said spend it, what would I spend it on?".

Bit hypothetical and not sure how it relates to this, but:
1: We're tumbling down the education league. So education.
2: The NHS is crumbling. So, the NHS.
That should eat up £50bn pretty quickly!

the cost of rolling stock should be included

rolling stock [...] still needs to be added to total cost.

So can we agree that rolling stock SHOULD be included and we're at that £50bn figure?

 

[JohnB57]

So can we agree that rolling stock SHOULD be included and we're at that £50bn figure?

I'm not representative of the pro lobby - I'm as sceptical as you so fill yer boots...

 

[tbtc]

My point is that if you take previous infrastructure projects, including the HS1, they got their predictions badly wrong

My point is that if you wish to damn a project, remind people that HS1 cost more than expected... if you wish to praise a project, remind people that most re-openings have exceeded predicted passenger numbers... anyone can play that game.

We need to do something to increase capacity over the next few decades. That means making decisions today about what level of demand we expect there to be. That involves an amount of guesswork, obviously - but nobody has come up with any better figures (other than some predictions that this newfangled Internet means that we'll all be working from home and therefore not needing to travel so much).

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm really not sure I'm following your line on this. The whole case for High Speed ("It's not about High Speed") 2 is based on predictions and models of passenger growth and working patterns, including, as touched on before, bizarre assumptions like "people never do any work on the train" and so on.

It doesn't matter whether the build cost is £1m with a "return" of £2m or £50bn with a "return" of £100bn. Both would be admirable. My point is that if you take previous infrastructure projects, including the HS1, they got their predictions badly wrong. You can't take running costs and fares out of the equation and isolate them as a protected case - that's ridiculous!

As for

In what context? Do you mean "if the country wasn't broke paying off vast amounts of interest and someone handed me £50bn and said spend it, what would I spend it on?".

Bit hypothetical and not sure how it relates to this, but:
1: We're tumbling down the education league. So education.
2: The NHS is crumbling. So, the NHS.
That should eat up £50bn pretty quickly!





So can we agree that rolling stock SHOULD be included and we're at that £50bn figure?

I stated that HS1 is far different due to the international travel which i still believe having looked at economic forecast models. And already since it was done the growth in rail has been higher than HS2 business case predicted so i do believe it has been done on the pessimistic side using some relevant lessons from HS1. You were stating projects going overbudget, that is usually just in construction is all i was getting at.

£2.5 billion a year is a rounding error in the NHS budget. Education is a good point, but we can't just stop spending on infrastructure to fund education.

To be fair on the rolling stock point i never disagreed, neither did i disagree with the £50bn figure. That was others.

I do however believe it will come in below £50 billion (current prices)due to the frankly HUGE contingency fund included in the capital expenditure.

 

[digitaltoast]

I do however believe it will come in below £50 billion (current prices)due to the frankly HUGE contingency fund included in the capital expenditure.

Based on what? Name me 5 recent major government projects which have come in UNDER budget. Or, another way:
What percentage of government projects over £1bn since y2000 have come in on budget or under budget?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Based on what? Name me 5 recent major government projects which have come in UNDER budget. Or, another way:
What percentage of government projects over £1bn since y2000 have come in on budget or under budget?

Because this one has a contingency far bigger than any other government project since 2000. Far Far Far bigger. The Construction of the route has a contingency of around 50%.

Do i think HS2 will cost the £28 billion they expect it to? No. Do i think it will cost the £42.6 billion with the contigency? No.

I think it will come between at around £35 billion, so £7 billion over original estimates. Then probably add £9 billion to that for rolling stock so that is adding 20% contingency to rolling stock costs too. £44 billion in total.

 

[digitaltoast]

Because this one has a contingency far bigger than any other government project since 2000. Far Far Far bigger. The Construction of the route has a contingency of around 50%.

I'd LOVE to see where you got that figure from. Meanwhile, back in reality:

http://hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-cost

Overall funding for Phase One has been set at £21.4 billion , including contingency of around £5.7bn. We would expect the level of contingency to reduce over time.
Overall funding for Phase Two has been set at £21.2 billion , including contingency of £8.7bn which, as with Phase One, we would expect to reduce over time.
The total for the route is therefore £42.6 billion, including £14.4 billion of contingency.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260525/strategic-case.pdf (The Strategic Case for HS2):

For both Phase One and the full Y network, the reference case is based on capital cost at P50. [Scroll] P50; a 50% chance of delivering on budget

I'm wondering if, (yet again), someone/you have (deliberately?) confused "P" with "percent"? Funny, as your signature says "The only way is the P-Way", not that I have any idea what that refers to.

"£42.6 billion, including £14.4 contingency" and "a 50% chance of delivering on budget" is not "50% contingency". Is it?

Just to clarify, and I think this is important people understand: The governments own optimistic white paper says there is a 50% chance it will go over the new revise budget.

 

[quantinghome]

I'd LOVE to see where you got that figure from. Meanwhile, back in reality:

http://hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-cost



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260525/strategic-case.pdf (The Strategic Case for HS2):


I'm wondering if, (yet again), someone/you have (deliberately?) confused "P" with "percent"? Funny, as your signature says "The only way is the P-Way", not that I have any idea what that refers to.

"£42.6 billion, including £14.4 contingency" and "a 50% chance of delivering on budget" is not "50% contingency". Is it?

Just to clarify, and I think this is important people understand: The governments own optimistic white paper says there is a 50% chance it will go over the new revise budget.

And a 50% chance it will be under budget. Are you aware of what a p50 estimate is? Btw the p50 estimate is £28bn.

 

[edwin_m]

I do agree with that. As much as i hate that rolling stock is now funded publicly not privately as originally planned it still needs to be added to total cost.

It should only be added to capital cost if the operating costs don't include leasing charges for the same rolling stock.