HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Government proposals, alternative routes, discussion

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

Earlier article updated following Commons statements......

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) News - HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) line to be delayed again with no new date given - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0wr7nw7wxo

[Timmer]

All the billions of pounds that have been poured into this massive white elephant that could have been spent elsewhere on the rail network. One project in particular that comes to mind is the bottleneck at Welwyn that would have increased capacity on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line).

[TaplowGreen]

........and this is what happened to those who spoke out....

https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/hs2-whistleblower-who-lost-his-job-awarded-319000-13-06-2025/

[Trowres]

It is interesting to compare HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) with schemes elsewhere.

Denmark's first high speed line (Copenhagen-Ringsted) had a slight head start on HS2, the idea being considered from 2007 (vs. 2009 for HS2). Again, capacity was a primary motivation. Speed aspirations were more modest, with 250kph being considered.

Much of the route runs parallel with motorways. There is some tunneling in urban areas; also some viaducts; but not on the scale of HS2. The work was planned as multiple contracts in the range of Euro30m to Euro200m.

Construction started in 2012 and it was opened in 2019. Operations had a very gradual start due to problems with the ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System). The route forms an integral part of the Danish network and will, a few years from now, connect to the European network via the Fehmarn Belt link to Germany.

Outturn cost for the 60km double track electrified line? DKK10bn, or about £1.2bn (give or take a bit on the exchange rates)

(edited to correct the name of the link to Germany)

[Sixty3Closure]

I was talking to someone who owns a business contracting on HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). A piece of equipment stopped working so they sent an engineer. The engineer explained that they needed to turn the machine on to see the error code although it was probably a £400 card but the HS2 person refused as it broke safety protocols and there was no one available to manage the change process to allow the machine to be turned on. This went on for a while until HS2 asked if the engineer could install a whole new unit which apparently was allowed and there was a change process for. £20,000 later this was done and as an added bonus the contractor was asked to take the old kit away. He replaced the card for £400 and then sold it for £15K.

I've kept the details vague to avoid identifying anyone but fair to say this was not in a high risk area. It does highlight though that perhaps there's not great financial controls and a culture that doesn't really think about the sums of money being spent or sees spending as an easier way to fix problems than managing them. £20K is probably a tiny part of someone's discretionary spend but repeat this hundreds of times over the course of the project and you can see why costs mount up. Also how dysfunctional is a project if you can swap a machine out but not turn it on to run diagnostics?

[TonyK]

In the Times the other day, I saw Morten Morland's cartoon and thought "TG^▸ (TaplowGreen - a respected member of this forum) will like this".

[Image from here is not available to guests]

[JohnM]

From the Telegraph:

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) ran tens of billions of pounds over budget and will open years late because it was designed to be unnecessarily fast, MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post (a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London), depending on context) have been told.

Lord Hendy, the rail minister, made the claim as he criticised the decision for the route to be built for trains running at speeds of 225mph, faster than on most high-speed networks overseas.

He said: “It is hard to understand why there was such zealotry about the highest-speed, high-speed railway in a relatively small country when the origination of it was to relieve capacity [problems].

“The case for better connectivity is pretty clear. The West Coast Main Line was predicted to be nearly full, and it is nearly full and under huge pressure.

“But there are two questions that doesn’t answer. One is why we needed an exceptionally fast railway, rather than just a fast railway.

“The other is the speed of delivery. I’m not sure I can make the case that it was desperate. Why it was pursued with such speed – and now we are suffering the cost of it – is hard to say.”

Lord Hendy questioned why HS2 needed to be even faster than the High Speed 1 route that runs between London’s St Pancras International Station and the Channel Tunnel, which at 186mph, he said was “quite fast as it is” and the standard speed for European high-speed lines.

He said about one-third of the HS2 route runs underground or through cuttings in order to keep the line straight and maximise speed, which had created significant engineering challenges.

The former chairman of Network Rail, which manages the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)’s train tracks and major stations, told the House of Commons transport committee that civil engineering work that should have been completed by now was still only about 60pc complete, with just one-third of the wider scheme, including tracks, trains and overhead power lines, finished.

‘Appalling mess’

Last month, the Government said that the opening of HS2 would be delayed beyond 2033 after cost overruns swelled to £37bn, despite the northern half of the project being scrapped to save money.

Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, said the scheme was an “appalling mess” following a “litany of failures” and could end up becoming the most expensive railway line in the world. Some £2bn alone was spent on its now-cancelled second phase to Manchester.

Alan Over, director general for major rail projects at the Department for Transport, told MPs that HS2 was built to such a high specification in part because of a political desire to go one better than Britain’s European rivals.

He said: “If you are going to build a new railway, you might as well make it faster than our historic railways. The speed helps a bit with the capacity as well, because you can get more trains through in the given amount of time.

“The question is, why did the country choose to do it faster than the French or faster than the Germans or faster than the Spanish? There was a bit of ‘we want to join the high-speed revolution’ and be as good as everyone else in that regard.”

Mr Over added: “It’s not bad to have a national ambition. But you have to understand the consequences, that you are then pushing the boundaries and introducing more risk, and that leads to more cost.”

He said that the HS2 was designed for trains faster than all but the speediest Japanese and Chinese models.

Mark Wild, who took over as HS2’s chief executive in December after running London’s Crossrail project, conceded that the project had been too ambitious but said there was now no choice but to persevere with the truncated plans.

He said: “The mistake made here is that the railway is just too fast and too stiff, and that has produced very, very significant civil engineering costs.

“We have clearly got into terrible trouble with the estimate. But the die is cast now and we have to make the best we can of it.”

[grahame]

London to Birmingham is 118 miles
At 225 m.p.h., that's 32 minutes
At 180 m.p.h., it's 40 minutes
At 140 m.p.h., it's 51 minutes
And at 125 m.p.h. its 57 minutes

Of course it will take longer - you have to allow for accelerating and breaking, and allow for the two minutes that you need to be there for closing of the doors, and time to get to and from the stations and platform.  Rather more I would ask about the freqency and how long you'll have to be at the station to check in before your train is called - one hopes not as long as Eurostar.

I find myself remaining of the personal opinion that 140 m.p.h. would have been quite fast enough, with half of the extra money spent to raise the speed limit on good access in and out of that backbone.

Questions - for what proportion of the journey will the trains be running at their top speed or even over 200 m.p.h., and are the ends engineered to a less fast standard - Old Oak Common to Perivale  - 4.5 miles - at 225 m.p.h. would take a minute and 12 seconds.

[a-driver]

London to Birmingham is 118 miles
At 225 m.p.h., that's 32 minutes
At 180 m.p.h., it's 40 minutes
At 140 m.p.h., it's 51 minutes
And at 125 m.p.h. its 57 minutes

Of course it will take longer - you have to allow for accelerating and breaking, and allow for the two minutes that you need to be there for closing of the doors, and time to get to and from the stations and platform.  Rather more I would ask about the freqency and how long you'll have to be at the station to check in before your train is called - one hopes not as long as Eurostar.

I find myself remaining of the personal opinion that 140 m.p.h. would have been quite fast enough, with half of the extra money spent to raise the speed limit on good access in and out of that backbone.

Questions - for what proportion of the journey will the trains be running at their top speed or even over 200 m.p.h., and are the ends engineered to a less fast standard - Old Oak Common to Perivale  - 4.5 miles - at 225 m.p.h. would take a minute and 12 seconds.

Utter codswallop!!!!!!  It’s a piece of infrastructure that’s going to be in place for 100s of years, you build it with the future in mind and thus you need to obtain the maximum speed as possible. You’re in competition with road and air.

When it comes to high speed rail around the world, they didn’t get to 125mph and said that’s fast enough. They are still pushing for faster speeds.

[Witham Bobby]

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) was conceived to provide extra capacity (sorely needed in many places, not just on the London to Birmingham route) and to be fit for the future

Lord Hendy now saying that it didn't need to be constructed with such high speed limits in mind does not fully explain the tunnels, many of which are for NIMBY reasons, the viaducts instead of earthworks, the slab track, or the bat tunnel, and several other specification extravagances

[TaplowGreen]

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) was conceived to provide extra capacity (sorely needed in many places, not just on the London to Birmingham route) and to be fit for the future

Lord Hendy now saying that it didn't need to be constructed with such high speed limits in mind does not fully explain the tunnels, many of which are for NIMBY reasons, the viaducts instead of earthworks, the slab track, or the bat tunnel, and several other specification extravagances

Judging by Hendy's comments, it would appear that the 225mph running speed was the greatest "specification extravagance" of them all! 

[Chris from Nailsea]

The government has made the demise of domestic air travel an explicit policy target for the first time by aiming to replace short-haul flights with a new 250mph high-speed rail network.

I was reminded of the original post in our previously merged topic on the subject of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) - so I've now merged the latest discussion into this one, in the interest of continuity.

[JohnM]

Thanks Chris - I should have guessed there was an HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))-related discussion ongoing somewhere.

[Electric train]

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) was conceived to provide extra capacity (sorely needed in many places, not just on the London to Birmingham route) and to be fit for the future

Lord Hendy now saying that it didn't need to be constructed with such high speed limits in mind does not fully explain the tunnels, many of which are for NIMBY reasons, the viaducts instead of earthworks, the slab track, or the bat tunnel, and several other specification extravagances

Judging by Hendy's comments, it would appear that the 225mph running speed was the greatest "specification extravagance" of them all! 

HS2 became a political vanity toy, Governments and particular PM's wanted the construction to start so they could beat their chests in Parliament and media that they were getting things done.  The comments Mark Wild has made that planning and consents are key to the success to any infrastructure projects both in terms of budgets and timescale.

Mark Wild HS2 July update on Youtube  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_Mef7LHkE

[grahame]

Picking up - if I dare - on the "Codswallop" I posted a couple of days ago.   Saving 15 minutes on a journey from London to Birmingham by having a huge build cost increase does not to me feel like common sense.  Saving several hours on a journey like we made yesterday - Strasbourg to Rennes = 840 kms (525 miles) does make sense; almost exactly 5 hours city centre to city centre, top speed 315kms/hr does make sense.

The project has moved from being a whole Great Britain one to a regional one across just the lower part of the Heart of England.  Project drift and at this point and with hindsight, some of the what is there now is over specification ... it may come back into its own should high speed go further north; the Scottish Lowlands would seem to have been logical.   We can argue all year as to how much should be invested for such a future ...

Personally, and it's not so much HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) as HS1.75, I would have liked to see HS2 linked across to HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel).   The Frankfurt (Main) Hbf model is an interesting one where some long distance trains across the country and beyond reverse in the Hbf (Hauptbahnhof - Main Station) and others call as stations around such as the airport and others terminate there.  Too late for such a model; I am very much aware that the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) decided it no longer wanted to be part of the EU^» (European Union - about), and it's not (never has been) part of Schengen (or Euro) - that different paths would have had some challenges  but many of the issues we as individuals and as a country faced today would have been less or eliminated.