Why is high speed rail in the UK so expensive to construct?

[Bald Rick]

What is the current fastest train?

‘Current’ isn’t a good guide

Tends to be around the 54 minute mark Victoria to Leeds, 56 from Picc.

On diesel, with 2 stops. I thought a clean run with 1stop is sub 50? And with electric around 44?

 

[Watershed]

On diesel, with 2 stops. I thought a clean run with 1stop is sub 50? And with electric around 44?

A clean run with 2 stops is 50 mins - see for example the new 0900 Victoria-Scarborough seaside express which starts in a month's time. 2 mins more to/from Piccadilly.

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst it might be slower than the current fastest time to York, many more paths would be available on the HS2 routing - since all the trains to Manchester can be extended through Leeds and beyond.

So generalised journey time may be fairly competitive, irrespective of any additional upgrades elsewhere.

After all many of the York trains take closer to 2hr or more than 1hr50

 

[Nunners]

Whilst it might be slower than the current fastest time to York, many more paths would be available on the HS2 routing - since all the trains to Manchester can be extended through Leeds and beyond.

So generalised journey time may be fairly competitive, irrespective of any additional upgrades elsewhere.

Indeed - the via Manchester time is still 10 minutes faster than the York-King's Cross stopper.
I can envisage at least 2tph of London and 2tph of Birmingham running on NPR to York and beyond

 

[quantinghome]

Isn't the Birmingham - Crewe section going to be choked? Ideally you'd want Birmingham services going North to serve Scotland (via Preston), Liverpool and Manchester. But with only three tph coming off the southern section of HS2 at serve Birmingham, there won't be the slots.

Also the Manchester spur is going to be well over capacity if it is to take NPR traffic as well as Birmingham/London - Yorkshire/NE traffic.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So in France, they have been developing plans for expansion of their high speed rail network for decades. Route corridors can be decided well in advance of construction, giving plenty of time to do due diligence (e.g. ground conditions).

In the UK, we are stuck going around in circles re-considering the original inverted Y network set out in 2010. We've spent the best part of a decade planning and doing due diligence on two separate high speed lines going up either side of the Pennines.

Is it really a surprise that it seems to cost so much in the UK when we can't make our minds up? Going to the reverse S network arrangement (as described back in 2010) means re-thinking most of the western branch north of Crewe. That sets everything back, again.

I think some part of the mistake was that in 2010, HS2 Ltd was tasked with getting Phase 1 and Phase 2 done together. Sorting out Phase 1 is hard enough already, but there aren't really that many decisions to be made. The only real options available are how many platforms you put at Euston and what spec (and hence TPH limits) you put on your plain line infrastructure.

Phase 2 is a much, much harder project to solve. Phase 2a is the only self-evident bit, as getting to the southern end of Crewe is pretty obvious. Everything else inevitably gets tied up in questions about local and regional rail provision.

Cut the eastern branch short at Doncaster and you get something altogether much less complex to deliver, like the route to Crewe. If no other plans can be worked out, then you run 200m units (possibly coupling up at Toton) on the paths currently used by ICEC services north of there.

 

[Nunners]

Isn't the Birmingham - Crewe section going to be choked? Ideally you'd want Birmingham services going North to serve Scotland (via Preston), Liverpool and Manchester. But with only three tph coming off the southern section of HS2 at serve Birmingham, there won't be the slots.

Also the Manchester spur is going to be well over capacity if it is to take NPR traffic as well as Birmingham/London - Yorkshire/NE traffic.

The Birmingham-Crewe section is planned to take 11tph with the Eastern branch. I assume capacity is theoretically 18tph so a couple of extra train paths to Manchester wouldn't be a huge problem

 

[HSTEd]

Isn't the Birmingham - Crewe section going to be choked? Ideally you'd want Birmingham services going North to serve Scotland (via Preston), Liverpool and Manchester. But with only three tph coming off the southern section of HS2 at serve Birmingham, there won't be the slots.

There are likely to be slots for six half sets per hour north of Birmingham, from Birmingham - plus whatever goes to a possible Toton stub.

Also the Manchester spur is going to be well over capacity if it is to take NPR traffic as well as Birmingham/London - Yorkshire/NE traffic.

That depends on just how many trains they want on NPR, you can probably handle four per hour each way.

 

[Bald Rick]

So in France, they have been developing plans for expansion of their high speed rail network for decades. Route corridors can be decided well in advance of construction, giving plenty of time to do due diligence (e.g. ground conditions).

Except they have changed their mind several times in France. Which way out of Bordeaux to the Spanish Border? Link to Limoges? The PACA line? It’s only a few years ago the whole programme was canned.

 

[quantinghome]

Except they have changed their mind several times in France. Which way out of Bordeaux to the Spanish Border? Link to Limoges? The PACA line? It’s only a few years ago the whole programme was canned.

Those are really peripheral routes though. They had a clear plan for the core network and stuck to it.

 

[ABB125]

I assumed that NPR would be in a tunnel under Picc and turn Eastwards sharply after leaving. I don't know what the current plans are but a reversal would be less than ideal.

Current plans (if they can be called plans!) are that NPR train will reverse at Piccadilly.

 

[snowball]

Current plans (if they can be called plans!) are that NPR train will reverse at Piccadilly.

Though as regular readers of the NPR thread will know, local bodies want a partly underground station allowing through trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Though as regular readers of the NPR thread will know, local bodies want a partly underground station allowing through trains.

The station they are proposing would be useless in this situation since everything I've seen has suggested it would only have 200m platforms.

In this scenario you will want 400m sets going at least as far as Leeds, and probably York.

 

[edwin_m]

Though as regular readers of the NPR thread will know, local bodies want a partly underground station allowing through trains.

Which would delay NPR, and HS2 into Manchester, by at least a decade and increase the cost by, probably, tens of billions.

 

[Starmill]

Tends to be around the 54 minute mark Victoria to Leeds, 56 from Picc.

Until 2018 it was 48 min twice an hour between Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds.

 

[HSTEd]

Byline times now has an article claiming that the HS2 land cost estimates were essentially junk and that the management tried to cover this up by sacking people who knew, apparently because they believed the major cost escalation would derail Royal Assent

However, in this special investigation, Byline Times can reveal more claims about what unfolded in HS2 from November 2015 to April 2016, as the scheme progressed through Parliament. According to its former head of property planning and performance Andrew Bruce, this period was marked a conscious suppression of reality and a contortion of the truth designed to secure parliamentary approval for the controversial rail scheme.

If the scheme was optimised based on a certain estimate for land value that turned out to be junk, that could dramatically effect optimisation of the project and thus overall costs.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Unpopular view on here but I fear HS2 is getting beyond elephant proportions and quickly turning into Moby Dick.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unpopular view on here but I fear HS2 is getting beyond elephant proportions and quickly turning into Moby Dick.

On what grounds?

 

[Wychwood93]

On what grounds?

Cost and timescale spring to mind.

 

[Bald Rick]

Cost and timescale spring to mind.

They haven’t changed since the rebaselining a few years ago.

 

[LittleAH]

Cost and timescale spring to mind.

And it doesn't help when at every step of the way somebody is calling for another costly review or yet another public inquiry. Both of which take yet more time.

There's a serious issue in this country about getting stuff done when it comes to infrastructure.

 

[Grumpy Git]

And it doesn't help when at every step of the way somebody is calling for another costly review or yet another public inquiry. Both of which take yet more time.

There's a serious issue in this country about getting stuff done when it comes to infrastructure.

I agree entirely.

Basically HS2 is 30 years too late.

There is also too many people with their grubby fingers in the pie.

 

[Starmill]

To my mind, the timescale appears to be going quite well. Before the next General Election, we are on course to have Phase 1 substantially underway, Phase 2a underway, and powers in place for Phase 2b Western Leg. That would put a new route between Manchester and London almost beyond the point of no return. I accept that the rest isn't looking so hopeful, but there's at least a chance of there being someone other than Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson in charge when that comes around.

 

[Ianno87]

There is also too many people with their grubby fingers in the pie.

Building a 300km+ high speed railway requires quite a lot of people.

 

[Glenn1969]

Surely most Northerners and Northern city leaders are more interested in improving connectivity between Northern cities than they necessarily are in getting to London?

Birmingham- East Midlands- Yorkshire currently takes longer than getting to London does due to inadequate infrastructure in several places, notably Sheffield and Leeds. We're in 2021 so why are we still constrained by 1921 type infrastructure?

 

[takno]

Surely most Northerners and Northern city leaders are more interested in improving connectivity between Northern cities than they necessarily are in getting to London?

Birmingham- East Midlands- Yorkshire currently takes longer than getting to London does due to inadequate infrastructure in several places, notably Sheffield and Leeds. We're in 2021 so why are we still constrained by 1921 type infrastructure?

I think connectivity between northern cities and down to Birmingham is probably the higher priority. It's risky to just lump "northern city leaders" together though - they have very different and often competing requirements. If I was leading Leeds and West Yorkshire for example I might not be all that bothered about getting to Manchester, and in fact I might regard it as most important that Manchester doesn't get HS2 before Leeds or instead of Leeds.

Ultimately the Northern cities are competing as much as they are cooperating. A bunch of silly southerners who think they've done the whole of the north a solid by running a fast train to Manchester might not be best placed to judge what the priorities are

 

[HSTEd]

We're in 2021 so why are we still constrained by 1921 type infrastructure?

Because noone is willing to spend the many many tens of billions necessary to actually fix everything?

 

[Grumpy Git]

Surely most Northerners and Northern city leaders are more interested in improving connectivity between Northern cities than they necessarily are in getting to London?

Birmingham- East Midlands- Yorkshire currently takes longer than getting to London does due to inadequate infrastructure in several places, notably Sheffield and Leeds. We're in 2021 so why are we still constrained by 1921 type infrastructure?

Exactly; London is 200 miles from Liverpool and just over 2 hours away, any other city less than 100 miles away not on the WCML takes at least the same time, but sometimes longer!

 

[jfowkes]

Exactly; London is 200 miles from Liverpool and just over 2 hours away, any other city less than 100 miles away not on the WCML takes at least the same time, but sometimes longer!

There seem to be essentially two ways of thinking about high speed rail in the UK, both of them true and valid.

1. London is the economic centre of the UK and has a desperate need for higher capacity public transport. HS2 is vital for providing that, primarily as a bypass for the WCML.
2. The cities of the North and the Midlands desperately need better public transport connectivity, both in journey time and capacity. HS2/NPR are vital for providing that.

Ideally we'd work out a way to do both without it being played out as a competition over money or resources. But we're stuck both an austerity mindset and a North vs. South mindset and it sucks.

 

[SynthD]

You don’t need austerity, to have a preference for 1 on benefit cost ratio grounds.