HS2 in the press

[Voglitz]

Have you not read the thread on GWR electrification, and all the problems with that just to electrify? Not half the work that would be required to do a meaningful upgrade of the WCML.

I don't need to read the thread on GWR electrification to know about its problems.

It was and is a poorly thought-out scheme, pulled out of a hat by Andrew Adonis.

Much like HS2, in that regard.

That doesn't alter the fact that upgrading existing lines is the norm, for a variety of reasons, including affordability, benefit-cost, and generally lower disruption.

Bearing in mind the WCML was upgraded at vast expense for little gain under the WCRM project only a few years ago so all the easy wins have already been done.

The WCML was upgraded at very limited expense - less than £3 billion - for quite a lot of gain.

Unless you think trebling Manchester - London capacity, etc, is "very little gain".

 

[najaB]

That is not at all correct. If it were, the government would be building an all-new railway from London to Cardiff (and so forth).

Apples and oranges comparison - there's no need for additional tracks between London and Cardiff, the existing railway isn't running anywhere near its maximum capacity. The same can't be said for the WCML.

Since new tracks are needed, it is cheaper to build them on a new alignment than to attempt to tack them onto the existing one.

 

[edwin_m]

The WCML was upgraded at very limited expense - less than £3 billion - for quite a lot of gain.

Unless you think trebling Manchester - London capacity, etc, is "very little gain".

More like £10 billion.

And most of the route didn't see any increase in capacity - it was more a matter of getting rid of specific "bottlenecks" that constrained the number of trains that could be worked end to end. With most of those now dealt with, any further uplift in capacity would involve doing something much more fundamental over large sections of the route. The benefit from ERTMS is sometimes quoted as 40% or so but likely to be much less on a railway like the WCML with mixed traffic and variable stopping patterns. So you're likely to be into adding an extra pair of tracks.

Which do you will be cheaper and less disruptive: Adding extra tracks alongside the existing railway, with service disruption and severe impact where it passes through built up areas? Or choosing a new route to avoid centres of population as far as possible, which can be treated as a standard construction site except in the few places where it connects to the railway?

 

[Voglitz]

Apples and oranges comparison - there's no need for additional tracks between London and Cardiff, the existing railway isn't running anywhere near its maximum capacity. The same can't be said for the WCML.

The only bit of the GWML running anywhere near its maximum current capacity is London - Reading.

In much the same way, the only bit of the WCML running anywhere near current capacity, is the fast lines south of MK.

So, apples and apples.

Since new tracks are needed, it is cheaper to build them on a new alignment than to attempt to tack them onto the existing one.

But as has been pointed out, evidence for new tracks being "needed", doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Between Manchester and London capacity was trebled, without significant outlay on new track.

 

[Trog]

I don't need to read the thread on GWR electrification to know about its problems.

Most of which would go away if they had a green field site that could be worked on 24/7 and did not have the complications of existing infrastructure.

Take it from someone who has actually done it that working in short possessions is a total pain that reduces productivity and costs the earth. Due to the inefficiency of working in short bursts and the amount of effort wasted on setting and packing up the site multiple times.

 

[najaB]

In much the same way, the only bit of the WCML running anywhere near current capacity, is the fast lines south of MK.

I'm sorry, but your reality doesn't correspond with mine so I doubt we'll ever reach consensus.

Between Manchester and London capacity was trebled, without significant outlay on new track.

Increased, not trebled. And only because there were some 'low hanging fruit' such as the two-track section through the Trent Valley. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to identify current locations where targeted interventions would have such a big impact?

 

[Voglitz]

Most of which would go away if they had a green field site that could be worked on 24/7 and did not have the complications of existing infrastructure.

Take it from someone who has actually done it that working in short possessions is a total pain that reduces productivity and costs the earth. Due to the inefficiency of working in short bursts and the amount of effort wasted on setting and packing up the site multiple times.

Despite GWM and WCRM being extremely poorly planned and managed, the evidence suggests they were still better value for money than building HS2.

More like £10 billion.

Not according to the government.

The £9 billion WCML renewal and modernisation programme comprised £2.5 billion of investment in infrastructure upgrades and £6.5 billion of investment in infrastructure renewals.

And most of the route didn't see any increase in capacity - it was more a matter of getting rid of specific "bottlenecks" that constrained the number of trains that could be worked end to end.

An increase in the number of trains that could be worked end to end = An increase in capacity.

 

[najaB]

Not according to the government.

The renewals were a significant part of the upgrade since they removed PSRs and the signalling upgrades eliminated some bottlenecks.

 

[HSTEd]

The WCML was upgraded at very limited expense - less than £3 billion - for quite a lot of gain.

When was that exactly?
I seem to recall the last upgrade programme on the WCML, the WCRM, was a disaster that cost £9bn+.
In fact in real terms it ended up costing more than the actual non-contigency construction for HS2-1.

Renewals is somewhat misleading, because there would have been far cheaper ways to renew the railway if it hadn't had the additional demands placed upon it that were placed upon it.

 

[Voglitz]

Increased, not trebled.

The frequency went from every 60 minutes, down to every 20 minutes. I'd call that a trebling of capacity.

When was that exactly?
I seem to recall the last upgrade programme on the WCML, the WCRM, was a disaster that cost £9bn+.

I've provided a link to official information. Which states the upgrade value was £2.5 billion, at the time of calculation.

In fact in real terms it ended up costing more than the actual non-contigency construction for HS2-1.

Contingency for phase 1 is £6.3 bn (2015).

Renewals is somewhat misleading, because there would have been far cheaper ways to renew the railway if it hadn't had the additional demands placed upon it that were placed upon it.

Which no-one appears to be aware of, other than your good self.

 

[NSEFAN]

An increase in the number of trains that could be worked end to end = An increase in capacity.

... and now that even more capacity is needed, how would you achieve this? Or do you disagree that more capacity is required?

 

[najaB]

The frequency went from every 60 minutes, down to every 20 minutes. I'd call that a trebling of capacity.

No. That was a trebling of the number of services. That's not proof of a trebling of capacity. It is entirely possible that there was capacity available but not at the right times to provide a clockface timetable.

I've provided a link to official information. Which states the upgrade value was £2.5 billion, at the time of calculation.

And you're conveniently ignoring the £6B of renewals that went along with it.

 

[Voglitz]

No. That was a trebling of the number of services. That's not proof of a trebling of capacity. It is entirely possible that there was capacity available but not at the right times to provide a clockface timetable.

Actually, Manchester - London capacity for passengers has more than trebled, because longer 11-carriage trains were brought in, after the VHF timetable.

And you're conveniently ignoring the £6B of renewals that went along with it.

I'm not sure how explicitly stating there were £6.5 billion of renewals, is "ignoring" anything.

If there hadn't been upgrades, there would still have had to be renewals, which would have meant service disruption. Unless, that is, you are advocating closing down a railway at the time when it needs major renewals, and replacing it with an entirely new line.

 

[miami]

Actually, Manchester - London capacity for passengers has more than trebled, because longer 11-carriage trains were brought in, after the VHF timetable.

Do you honestly believe that an existing line can continue to be upgraded forever?

If not, are you suggesting that the line still has upgrades that are as easy to do as the 2008 upgrades? And this will continue ad-infinitum.

The biggest problem with HS2 is that they still haven't actually started the digging.

 

[najaB]

Actually, Manchester - London capacity for passengers has more than trebled, because longer 11-carriage trains were brought in, after the VHF timetable.

This is true. However, as I said, there is a difference between an increase in the number of services/length of trains and an increase in route capacity.

I'm not sure how explicitly stating there were £6.5 billion of renewals, is "ignoring" anything.

If there hadn't been upgrades, there would still have had to be renewals...

Every time someone points out that the WCRM cost the best part of £10B, you counter that £6.5B was renewals. While it might have been accounted for as renewals, much of the work done as part of the WCRM program wasn't standard like-for-like replacement work. Nor was it strictly required at the time based on the condition of the assets. However replacing the signalling and key S&C assets was necessary to remove impediments to increasing the linespeed and removing bottlenecks. Which makes it part and parcel of the program cost.

 

[The Planner]

If there hadn't been upgrades, there would still have had to be renewals, which would have meant service disruption. Unless, that is, you are advocating closing down a railway at the time when it needs major renewals, and replacing it with an entirely new line.

Depends on how the renewals are done, you are very unlikely to renew a 100 mile length of railway in one go and you do it over weekends and public holidays in smaller chunks as you do now. Upgrading the WCMLfrom Euston northwards in terms of extra infrastructure isnt going to be very efficient if you just did it on weekends.

 

[Voglitz]

Depends on how the renewals are done, you are very unlikely to renew a 100 mile length of railway in one go and you do it over weekends and public holidays in smaller chunks as you do now. Upgrading the WCMLfrom Euston northwards in terms of extra infrastructure isnt going to be very efficient if you just did it on weekends.

Renewals aren't going to be very efficient if you just did them on weekends, or overnight. But that's what does and will happen on the WCML from Euston northwards, and on other lines.

However replacing the signalling and key S&C assets was necessary to remove impediments to increasing the linespeed and removing bottlenecks. Which makes it part and parcel of the program cost.

I didn't say it wasn't part of the programme cost. I said (i) the cost of the upgrade was not £9 billion or £10 billion, (ii) disruption on the WCML comes with maintaining the WCML. It is not avoided by building HS2.

While it might have been accounted for as renewals, much of the work done as part of the WCRM program wasn't standard like-for-like replacement work.

Indeed. In many cases, the disruption from upgrading was effectively zero because, for example, end-of-life lighter rail was replaced with new heavier rail (an enhancement) in the same time it would have taken to do like for like renewal.

 

[The Planner]

Renewals aren't going to be very efficient if you just did them on weekends, or overnight. But that's what does and will happen on the WCML from Euston northwards, and on other lines.

But if the existing WCML should be upgraded instead of HS2 as seems to be the most used retort how do you do it?

 

[Polarbear]

The capacity issues aren't just at the London end of the WCML.

There's also a need & some political will to increase capacity for local services in & around major cities on/around the route of HS2. For example, putting the current fast service from London to Birmingham onto a new line will free up a lot of capacity for local services in & around the West Midlands.

At present, the local services are fairly poor, mainly due to having to work around a 20 minute frequency fast service along an essentially 2 track corridor between Coventry & Birmingham New Street.

Removal of the fast trains will allow a much more regular pattern stopping service on the Coventry - New Street section which should encourage modal shift from car to rail.

As HS2 develops, I expect the same effect will be felt around Manchester, between Birmingham and Manchester, and in due course, in the East Midlands and Yorkshire as well.

HS2 will also allow for extra capacity to be provided between the South Midlands & London. There's quite a lot of untapped market out there (a fair bit of it sat on the M1 at present) that a decent service between Rugby & London, post HS2, should be able to tap into.

These are just a few examples of how building a new line, separate from the current WCML will open up many new journey opportunities.

 

[Trog]

(ii) disruption on the WCML comes with maintaining the WCML. It is not avoided by building HS2.

But if the shifting of traffic to the new HS2 allows longer possessions for engineering work on the WCML, as one of the uses of the freed up capacity. HS2 will thus allow engineering work to be carried out more efficiently, which means less disruption.

 

[The Ham]

But if the shifting of traffic to the new HS2 allows longer possessions for engineering work on the WCML, as one of the uses of the freed up capacity. HS2 will thus allow engineering work to be carried out more efficiently, which means less disruption.

To highlight this, at present if the WCML is closed (say a Watford) the time taken to get to Coventry is a lot more than the current slowest services. With HS2 you could go up to Birmingham and double back and hardly notice a difference compared to the current fastest service (and it is likely to be a valid route when there are closers as it would be cheaper, at least in terms of keeping passengers, compared to print people on a bus to bridge the blockade).

 

[willsmadeit]

Yawn... we have heard this all before. This is needed for extra capacity.
"the misery it is causing to farmers, land and property owners in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire." - This reeks of sour grapes.. not offered enough money or not offered any money?? You are a NIMBY of the highest order.[/QUOTE]

If you really think that it is down to money it shows how deluded you are! How would you like to be turned out of your home of the last 70 years or so and oh, by the way, this farm is also your business and way of life. Money puts that right?

 

[The Ham]

To start with, it would be helpful to determine what "the required capacity" means.

No-one seems to have a clear idea.

I would suggest the minimum that any scheme (or collection of schemes) would have to achieve is capability to cope with double the number of passengers there were in 2009 when HS2 was proposed.

Now before saying that figure is unreasonable, let's look at what national rail growth has done in the 7 years for which we have data for; at the end of 2009 the number of passengers was 1,073,753,933 whilst by the end of 2016 it was 1,463,777,211 (+36% in 7 years) whilst based on the same start point by 2026 growth was expected to have grown by 52% (or to 1,633,843,593).

Based on current growth (5%, and not the 2.5% which was the assumed passenger growth in the HS2 model) then we'll hit it in about 2 years time. Meaning that unless we've got to peak train usage (unlikely given how fast current growth rates are) were going to exceed the assumed level at which HS2 phase 1 was considered viable to do well before much with has happened, let alone it is ready to open.

As such by the time of all of HS2 being open it is not unreasonable to assume that we could reach double the number of passengers. Even if we don't, there is a good chance that we could reach that point soon after.

 

[The Ham]

A further thought, to put a doubling of passenger numbers between 2009 and 2033 into perspective that works out at a growth in passengers of 3% per year over that time frame.

However given the growth already achieved then the average needed from now until 2033 is less than this and will continue to shrink the closer to 2033 that we get.

In fact if we have an average of 5% for another 8 years then we'll hit double passenger numbers in 2024.

 

[Altfish]

That is not at all correct. If it were, the government would be building an all-new railway from London to Cardiff (and so forth).



Assuming the 2017 cost is as you say, TV4 cost ~£43m per track mile.

At £18000m (excluding contingency, 2015) HS2 phase 1 works out at ~£60m per track mile.

TV 4 was predominantly in flat, open fields, a few structures, no tunnels. In fact a simpler widening scheme would be hard to imagine.

 

[Altfish]

If you really think that it is down to money it shows how deluded you are! How would you like to be turned out of your home of the last 70 years or so and oh, by the way, this farm is also your business and way of life. Money puts that right?

I wouldn't like to be turfed out of my home. And you have my sympathy and I wish you well.

BUT if that argument was used to stop every infrastructure scheme the UK would grind to a halt.
Near where I live a new road has just gone in (due to open end of March) it is about 5-miles long and there have been probably 10 properties demolished, farms split in two, tress down, etc., etc. Hardly any protests.
HS2 is following a very similar route, good grief it is a different standard.

 

[Trog]

TV 4 was predominantly in flat, open fields, a few structures, no tunnels. In fact a simpler widening scheme would be hard to imagine.

Brinklow to Attleborough?

Shorter, and only one extra track required.

 

[dggar]

why are posters feeding this troll

 

[The Ham]

why are posters feeding this troll

...because most trolls (or even those who are opposed to HS2) don't ever give an answer as to how to cope with the likely passenger growth.

They say things like:
- it's not needed (current stats show that if it's not needed now it soon will be)
- we'll all start using broadband and stop using trains (current stats show fairly high growth still even though even 4G mobile data is fairly good)
- HS1's growth was wrong and so will HS2's (on this they are right however HS1's was too high and HS2's is too low which means that HS2 is needed sooner than the model suggests)
- Rail Package two will cope with the expected demand (even though we've eroded through about half of the capacity that would bring with no signs of it slowing down)
- HS2 will be an unused white elephant (even if it is only used by the current fast services, ignoring the fact that there have been applications for additional services which have been refused due to capacity issues, it will see more rail traffic than some of our existing intercity lines, such as the GWR lines in Cornwall, yet would allow for extra services on the WCML)

Then of course there is the argument, what if you are wrong? If I am wrong and passenger growth stalls then we have a nice new line which provides lots of capacity (some of which could well be used by open access operators) and although could be pricey compared to the usage it gets isn't going to be a too bad a thing.

If those opposed to HS2 are wrong and we hit double passenger numbers by 2024 (i.e. above what HS2's business case was based upon and therefore above what Rail Package 2 could cope with); then we'll need to build something like HS2 and do it quickly and on a railway which is a lot busier than it is now (i.e. it will cost more to do).

Of those two outcomes I would rather be wrong than end up with those opposed to HS2 being wrong and the problems that would bring.

 

[snowball]

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/...t-award-after-mace-objection/10017700.article

HS2 delays CH2M contract award after Mace objection

Exclusive: HS2 has delayed officially awarding the £170m phase two development partner contract – and will meet unsuccessful bidder Mace to discuss the procurement process.

CH2M was expected to officially sign the phase 2b development partner contract today, but this has now been postponed until a meeting takes place early next week between the client and Mace, Construction News can reveal.

Last week Mace announced that it was considering its options following HS2’s decision to award CH2M the contract.

A spokesman for HS2 told Construction News: “Last week we received a request for information from one of the bidders about the proposed award of the role of development partner for phase 2b.

“It is important that all the bidders have confidence in the process and, as such, we have agreed to delay contract award while we meet with them to discuss the questions they have raised.”

A Mace spokeswoman said today: “We can confirm that HS2 has invited us to a private meeting to discuss the phase 2b delivery partner procurement process.

“We welcome that HS2 has acknowledged the need for this meeting. We continue to review our options closely.”

A JV of Mace and Turner & Townsend missed out on the phase 2b delivery partner deal, despite making the shortlist last summer.

The award came amid concerns over a conflict of interest after former CH2M European managing director Roy Hill was appointed interim chief executive of HS2 during the procurement process for the contract.

HS2 has maintained that its procurement process was robust in selecting CH2M for the phase 2b role, including the use of a ‘Chinese Wall’ agreement that prohibited communication between CH2M’s phase two bid team and those CH2M staff already working for HS2.

Mace also lost out to CH2M as a single bidder for the phase one development contract back in 2012.

The news of the latest delay in the contract signing comes after Bechtel confirmed to Construction News that it would not be challenging the phase two decision.

The company, which missed out on both phase one and phase two development partner contracts to CH2M, is currently bidding for one of the seven civils package along phase one of the route.

Turner & Townsend had already confirmed it would not be challenging the award with Mace.

Earlier this week HS2 achieved royal assent for phase one of the line, paving the way for construction to begin on the section from London to Birmingham.

CH2M declined to comment.