HS2 Old Oak Common

[Geogregor]

The TBMs are in process of being delivered, last convoy of sections due to arrive by 5th October

https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2305-Notice-of-out-of-hours-TBM-deliveries-TS.pdf

I wonder when we will see some first shots of those machines, at least from drones.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yet, even before the General Election the construction team were saying when tunneling would commence in 2025.

Seems to plenty of activity still going at the tunnel end of the Euston site so they are ready to receive the TBMs.

 

[brad465]

And the newspapers this morning reporting that £19-20bn blackhole* found (so far) on current confirmed activities this FY to be announced by the chancellor shortly.

*which will include contingency amounts

I've also seen reports that road and hospital infrastructure projects are among the things being considered for mothball at least, including the Lower Thames Crossing and hospital upgrades/maintenance that are not to do with RAAC concrete (which is consuming the budget for hospital infrastructure right now), rather than HS2 stuff.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I've also seen reports that road and hospital infrastructure projects are among the things being considered for mothball at least, including the Lower Thames Crossing and hospital upgrades/maintenance that are not to do with RAAC concrete (which is consuming the budget for hospital infrastructure right now), rather than HS2 stuff.

Sunday Times has this its behind a paywall but screengrab from tomorrowspapers


Can't see that happening more likely spend will right shifted to later years.

 

[Topological]

Those who said Labour spending plans were not costed might be about to be shown to be correct.

It's quite scary to see what they plan to cut (probably HS2 to Euston is not the worst of the set)

In the old days it was plausible they could not have planned accurately, but since the Office for Budget Responsibility, it is much harder to have a "missing £20bn".

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Those who said Labour spending plans were not costed might be about to be shown to be correct.

It's quite scary to see what they plan to cut (probably HS2 to Euston is not the worst of the set)

In the old days it was plausible they could not have planned accurately, but since the Office for Budget Responsibility, it is much harder to have a "missing £20bn".

I suspect they will spend more than you think but in other parts of the country and on things that the majority of people want/need this is abot generating some savings on nice to have projects.

 

[brad465]

Those who said Labour spending plans were not costed might be about to be shown to be correct.

It's quite scary to see what they plan to cut (probably HS2 to Euston is not the worst of the set)

In the old days it was plausible they could not have planned accurately, but since the Office for Budget Responsibility, it is much harder to have a "missing £20bn".

I suspect they will spend more than you think but in other parts of the country and on things that the majority of people want/need this is about generating some savings on nice to have projects.

The FT report on this made a particular note about how the current financial year is the final year under the 2021 Spending Review, which was very "front-loaded" and eroded by high inflation. Someone who is more of an expert maybe able to advise better on this, but this suggests that the March budget for the next financial year could support more spending:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

...“This year was always going to be crunch year,” said Ben Zaranko at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, noting that 2024-25 is the final fiscal year of the spending review laid out by Sunak when he was chancellor in 2021...

 

[Topological]

I suspect they will spend more than you think but in other parts of the country and on things that the majority of people want/need this is abot generating some savings on nice to have projects.

I hope you are right

BUT, both parties are combining to throttle the potential of the north with HS2 cuts

The A303 Stonehenge seems like a pretty obvious thing to build (but apparently is on the cut list)

The 2050 hospital building programme seems to be another mistake as well.

Let's see what the final list is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2024 ==

The FT report on this made a particular note about how the current financial year is the final year under the 2021 Spending Review, which was very "front-loaded" and eroded by high inflation. Someone who is more of an expert maybe able to advise better on this, but this suggests that the March budget for the next financial year could support more spending:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

I have not read the FT.

However, for all inflation raises costs, the increases in individuals' incomes associated with inflation have also brought a large tax dividend (recall that the thresholds for income tax did not move with inflation).

* Figures are on average since some did not get pay rises and some are still waiting for their agreed backdated rises.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I hope you are right

BUT, both parties are combining to throttle the potential of the north with HS2 cuts

Yes with HS2 but still reckon we will see an indication that funding will be prioritised for more local improvements and there are plenty of economic experts who say borrowing to invest in infrastructure should be treated differently to borrowing for day to day operations.

The A303 Stonehenge seems like a pretty obvious thing to build (but apparently is on the cut list)

1.7B for the tunnel is HS2 pricing levels for construction per mile and even then the environmentalists are objecting to it

 

[Topological]

Yes with HS2 but still reckon we will see an indication that funding will be prioritised for more local improvements and there are plenty of economic experts who say borrowing to invest in infrastructure should be treated differently to borrowing for day to day operations.

1.7B for the tunnel is HS2 pricing levels for construction per mile and even then the environmentalists are objecting to it

There is a lot of sense in permitting borrowing for investment. Though there are very definitely two schools of thought on that one. Nominally it should be Labour pushing for more borrowing for infrastructure. (The counter-argument is that government expenditure is inflationary as it raises demand in the economy)

Having spent all that money fighting the environmentalists and getting permission it would be very remiss to let that expenditure lapse. Yes, there is the notion of sunk-cost fallacy, but then there is also the common sense that says that the project is needed.

We are straying a little from OOC, but the points do stand as an argument for Euston to be built in its optimal form.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Yes with HS2 but still reckon we will see an indication that funding will be prioritised for more local improvements and there are plenty of economic experts who say borrowing to invest in infrastructure should be treated differently to borrowing for day to day operations.

1.7B for the tunnel is HS2 pricing levels for construction per mile and even then the environmentalists are objecting to it

What is meant by "the environmentalists" with a definite article, as though they're a different alien breed? Or is it meant to be deliberately demeaning?

 

[zwk500]

1.7B for the tunnel is HS2 pricing levels for construction per mile and even then the environmentalists are objecting to it

It's circular though - the tunnel is expensive because of all the objections forcing legal challenges and then it's objected to on grounds of cost.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's circular though - the tunnel is expensive because of all the objections forcing legal challenges and then it's objected to on grounds of cost.

It's a bit like the sell-off of BR's rolling stock to the Roscos.
Labour was very vocal about reversing the privatisation process in 1996-7, so the Treasury got less cash than it expected for the fleet in the sale.
Labour then accepted privatisation as a done deal, and still doesn't plan to buy the fleet back (now much more expensive of course).

Labour's "£20 billion" hole is just like any incoming new-broom company management would do.
They want to bury bad news so the improvements in the future will look better.
The IFS has been warning of the "black hole" since before the election was called.

 

[brad465]

Labour's "£20 billion" hole is just like any incoming new-broom company management would do.
They want to bury bad news so the improvements in the future will look better.
The IFS has been warning of the "black hole" since before the election was called.

That's part of the reason, the other part is that for all our disgust at lying politicians, the truth is political suicide, even if accepting the truth leads to better long term outcomes. Examples of where telling the truth led to a backlash are Theresa May's dementia tax and Johnson's (yes he has told the truth before believe it or not) "many loved ones will die before their time". Regarding HS2 I imagine many lies have been told about realistic timings, costs and scope of the project, but covering up the truth until one cannot hide it anymore has led to a worse outcome in every way.

 

[Backroom_boy]

It's circular though - the tunnel is expensive because of all the objections forcing legal challenges and then it's objected to on grounds of cost.

Legal challenges aren't the big cost of thr tunnel; it's the tunnel itself which is in a very unexpectedly odd geological area apparently (hence the cost went up after the geological surveys)

 

[12LDA28C]

Legal challenges aren't the big cost of thr tunnel; it's the tunnel itself which is in a very unexpectedly odd geological area apparently (hence the cost went up after the geological surveys)

Legal challenges certainly add cost if they cause any delay to the project with a price to be paid for lost productivity and so on.

 

[Topological]

For Stonehenge, the final decision is due very soon:

A303 Stonehenge: What is the latest position? - Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site

UPDATED 20 January 2025 17 January 2025 – Our ally, Transport Action Network (TAN), launched their report ‘Connecting South West England: in place of A303/A358 widening’. Read more here November 2024 – Application to the Supreme Court: Planning permission for the proposed new road and tunnel...

stonehengealliance.org.uk

Having side-lined UNESCO’s pleas to change plans, the only thing stopping the contractors from starting work at Stonehenge World Heritage Site is the legal appeal against Judge Holgate’s dismissal of the challenge last February. The Court of Appeal has granted our partners Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site a hearing. BUT the Development Consent Order is still in place and the construction work is shovel ready.​

For Labour to then not put the shovels in the ground would seem very remiss.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

For Stonehenge, the final decision is due very soon:

A303 Stonehenge: What is the latest position? - Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site

UPDATED 20 January 2025 17 January 2025 – Our ally, Transport Action Network (TAN), launched their report ‘Connecting South West England: in place of A303/A358 widening’. Read more here November 2024 – Application to the Supreme Court: Planning permission for the proposed new road and tunnel...

stonehengealliance.org.uk

For Labour to then not put the shovels in the ground would seem very remiss.

Not really 1.7B pays for a lot more worthy causes than saving the middle class west country road trips 10-15mins

 

[vic-rijrode]

Not really 1.7B pays for a lot more worthy causes than saving the middle class west country road trips 10-15mins

Is it only the "middle class" that uses the A303 to get to Devon and Cornwall? Please...

You'll be stating next that it's only the upper class that will be using HS2.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Is it only the "middle class" that uses the A303 to get to Devon and Cornwall? Please...

You'll be stating next that it's only the upper class that will be using HS2.

Of course its not but Labour know where they need target whatever cash they have spare and it aint on a tunnel under Stonehenge that wont be built for another five years.

 

[Topological]

Is it only the "middle class" that uses the A303 to get to Devon and Cornwall? Please...

You'll be stating next that it's only the upper class that will be using HS2.

My take on it was that it makes staycations down to Devon and Cornwall easier for a whole set of Labour voters. However, I may be wrong about Londoners holiday destinations these days.

Giving better journeys between the South West and London makes a lot of sense from so many perspectives.

I appreciate this is a railway forum though.

I would actually place Stonehenge above HS2 to Euston, if it were possible to get more Elizabeth Line trains to OOC.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I would actually place Stonehenge above HS2 to Euston, if it were possible to get more Elizabeth Line trains to OOC.

Well they've been given an extra 10 trains in anticipation and with the cut down version of HS2 its not going to be taxed now for many years if ever so no rush to get to Euston

 

[Class 170101]

Well they've been given an extra 10 trains in anticipation and with the cut down version of HS2 its not going to be taxed now for many years if ever so no rush to get to Euston

The issue isn't HS2 but Old Oak Common. Extending the Paddington terminators will be thye capcity to get passengers away. The other services from west of Old Oak Common will be already full at Peak times if some of the local media is to be believed.

I don't think there will be enough services to remove people from Old Oak Common without Euston just as I don't think there will be enough services at Euston to remove the people without Old Oak Common.

 

[HSTEd]

The issue isn't HS2 but Old Oak Common. Extending the Paddington terminators will be thye capcity to get passengers away. The other services from west of Old Oak Common will be already full at Peak times if some of the local media is to be believed.

I don't think there will be enough services to remove people from Old Oak Common without Euston just as I don't think there will be enough services at Euston to remove the people without Old Oak Common.

If they extend all the Paddington terminators to Old Oak Common there would be enough capacity to absorb the rump HS2 traffic.......

The ordered additional 345 trainsets should be sufficient for this.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Fair play to them, I said to many people it will be the same short sighted decision making of the previous lot and not to expect anything different. I said it would take a year, so to achieve that in less than a month is quite an achievement.

 

[Class 170101]

If they extend all the Paddington terminators to Old Oak Common there would be enough capacity to absorb the rump HS2 traffic.......

The ordered additional 345 trainsets should be sufficient for this.

and locfal traffic generated by the general devlopment of this area? Isn't the idea meant to be another Stratford (London) type development for the surrounding area?

 

[HSTEd]

and locfal traffic generated by the general devlopment of this area? Isn't the idea meant to be another Stratford (London) type development for the surrounding area?

The traffic from the local area would be spread over the other transport systems in the area (Central Line et al).
I'm not sure any plausible redevelopment could truly overwhelm the capacity of Crossrail.

 

[Horizon22]

If they extend all the Paddington terminators to Old Oak Common there would be enough capacity to absorb the rump HS2 traffic.......

The ordered additional 345 trainsets should be sufficient for this.

The 345s would be fine, but the infrastructure needs some investment, notably CBTC deployed out to Old Oak Common if there is to be quick turnarounds and 24tph on that (small) part of the GWML.

 

[hwl]

If they extend all the Paddington terminators to Old Oak Common there would be enough capacity to absorb the rump HS2 traffic.......

The ordered additional 345 trainsets should be sufficient for this.

TfL say the extra 10 are sufficient for 18tph to OOC as well as some other improvements.
There are options for 13 more that would get the service level to 26/28tph to OOC from the core.

 

[rower40]

Part of the extra Stonehenge Tunnel cost is to put the stones on a turntable so that they can be adjusted between GMT and BST.