Suppose HS2 was cancelled

[Simpo Two]

Essarell said:

LotusOmega375D said:

Jeremy Hunt is now saying it will reach Euston after all.

I think that was the only answer he could give, he probably knows the truth and is hoping someone else gets to break the news.

As costs spiral ever more out of control, before it gets to Euston that part will be scrapped. By a Labour Government. It's not needed, it will achieve Jack Schitt and it will cost more money than the country has, if indeed we have any and it's not all just a massive pit of debt. HS2 should never have been started IMHO, it was always a folly/white elephant, and was the first mistake Boris made.

Governments are famous for cancelling projects halfway through after massive amounts of money have been spent/wasted; I hope HS2 is no exception, and that the billions thus saved can be put to something more useful.

[Penguinracer]

Only in the UK would you have a system where continental travellers could sweep effortless across France & Germany on High Speed rail, cross the channel via the multi-billion pound Channel Tunnel on the 300 km/h Eurostar, only to arrive at St Pancras International and have to unceremoniously trundle their luggage half a mile down Euston Road to Euston Station to continue via High Speed Rail to the north of the county.

For the love of God...why doesn't HS2 connect with HS1 at St Pancras International...because some ministerial ingenu thought it would save £400m...which is a drop in the ocean in the scheme of things...typical British Government bodgery.

[Sheepshanks]

Simpo Two said:

.....and that the billions thus saved can be put to something more useful.

Does that money exist? I don't suppose it's sitting there, waiting to be spent.

[deeen]

Sheepshanks said:

Simpo Two said:

.....and that the billions thus saved can be put to something more useful.

Does that money exist? I don't suppose it's sitting there, waiting to be spent.

It's already budgeted for, so that budget could be freed up for something else

[EliseNick]

deeen said:

Sheepshanks said:

Simpo Two said:

.....and that the billions thus saved can be put to something more useful.

Does that money exist? I don't suppose it's sitting there, waiting to be spent.

It's already budgeted for, so that budget could be freed up for something else

No, the money can't be freed up. It's being borrowed against the predicted economic boost due to building HS2. No HS2, no money.

[EliseNick]

It's not exactly a novel observation, but this government is getting beyond a joke.

It feels a bit like, if some people are in favour of building infrastructure X, and some people are against building infrastructure X, the relevant minister comes to the conclusion that building a really st version of infrastructure X should keep both sides of the debate happy.

[Chrisgr31]

Essarell said:

Not my usual cup of tea but caught the Jeremy Vine show today, that was a jaw dropping insight. The expert pointed out that yes, they may have planned it to Euston but that they had no solution or design actually signed off?????
What is going on, I know it’s easy to snipe from the back but anyone could see it was a flawed project from the start.

They did spend over £100 million on a plan for Euston, but then decided to reduce the number of platforms so threw it all in the bin and started again.

[Essarell]

It’s fascinating reading back on HS2 articles, 18 trains an hour and circa 1100 passengers per train is (or rather was) certainly ambitious. Speeds up to 360km/p/h definitely got our attention.

Now we’re into2023 and it’s suddenly looking very different with routes dropped and the uncertainty of actually arriving in Central London though maybe that was always a design fault as why would you want your line to head for dead end when surely heading straight on to mainland Europe via Heathrow would have been far more practical and would have provided an even bigger pool of customers.

I couldn’t see any reference or reason but why were Leeds - Manchester not connected in the original proposal? It would have provided high speed service between the two centres and a circular route to allow diversity to the network. I appreciate there’s a tad of an elevation change at the mid-point but nothing that Victorian engineers couldn’t take in their stride.

[Bonefish Blues]

It's hard to escape the oft-repeated trope that we're just rubbish at these Grands Projets

[Mr Penguin]

Penguinracer said:

Only in the UK would you have a system where continental travellers could sweep effortless across France & Germany on High Speed rail, cross the channel via the multi-billion pound Channel Tunnel on the 300 km/h Eurostar, only to arrive at St Pancras International and have to unceremoniously trundle their luggage half a mile down Euston Road to Euston Station to continue via High Speed Rail to the north of the county.

For the love of God...why doesn't HS2 connect with HS1 at St Pancras International...because some ministerial ingenu thought it would save £400m...which is a drop in the ocean in the scheme of things...typical British Government bodgery.

You get this in France too, the Eurostar arrives at Gare du Nord and then you'd have to go to another station to go somewhere else. Gare de l'Est is next door, but its an hour's walk or a trip on the metro to a station that takes you south.

[alscar]

EliseNick said:

No, the money can't be freed up. It's being borrowed against the predicted economic boost due to building HS2. No HS2, no money.

Is this the HMG computer modelled prediction for the boost caused by the physical build or for life post build ?
Either way the prediction will sadly in the decades to come prove wrong.
Even before Covid there was no way those trains would carry the numbers being used to try and justify building as simply there were never going to be that number travelling.
After I’m long gone from this world ( even assuming a train ever runs ) no return will ever be seen form this vanity only project.
If only a Government ( any party ) had the balls to say enough is enough let’s cancel.

[aeropilot]

Collectingbrass said:

Bonefish Blues said:

aeropilot said:

Collectingbrass said:

aeropilot said:

alscar said:

No direct HS2 trains to central London meaning switch to tube for the last part of the journey thus defeating the entire object of the exercise.

Worse, in that to connect with Eurostar, you'd need to change onto tube, as Elizabeth Line doesn't go to St.Panc's......
It was bad enough that the connection was now going to be a designated covered walkway from Euston to St.Panc's, but a crappy Crossrail to tube to St.Pancs connection is just pointless.

And why they didn't route it under Heathrow I will never know.

Why on earth would you do that...?

I assumed there might be a really obvious reason I was missing

Because substitution of short haul flights with rail will be coming and routing HS2 via Heathrow, in the same way that some of the TGV lines enter Paris under Charles De Gaul, would enable this and defer the need for Runway 3. If HS2 also went into St Pancras you could include near Europe in this catchment area and take long haul business off Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Charles De Gaul airports, which is good for UK airlines, tourism, City services and UK - Global connectivity.

Cost would be extreme......and people are moaning enough as it is. Trying to get a link from current to LHR would have to be all tunnel......plus you would have to connect to the back of the Heathrow Express link at T5, and then use that back onto the GWR, which you'd then have to use up to Old Oak Common, and then link back to HS2 to Euston. You could not now build a new link even deeper under LHR under the Heathrow Express/Elizabeth Line now.

The unfeasibility of your proposal is exactly why they are building an interchange at Old Oak Common between HS2 and GWR/Elizabeth Line, which will provide that interchange to Heathrow from the north without having to go all the way into London, and vice versa. It will be less than 30mins from Old Oak Common to Heathrow on Elizabeth Line. More sensible would be to add a single stop for Heathrow Express at Old Oak common for this purpose, which would mean 15mins or less to Heathrow from Old Oak Common.

Again, there were initial plans to link HS2 to Eurostar at St.Panc but the upgrade needed for the short link across Camden meant that it would have been the most expensive rail per mile on the planet, plus there was HUGE opposition from residents of Primrose Hill/Camden and businesses in Camden as it would have meant a huge swathe of that route demolished to do that link. It was thus no real surprise that direct link of HS2 to Eurostar got canned.

[hidetheelephants]

Bonefish Blues said:

It's hard to escape the oft-repeated trope that we're just rubbish at these Grands Projets

The contractors are getting on with it; that it's a political football is an inevitable consequence of being a multidecade project in a country where the average govt lasts 3 years and most MPs are people you'd avoid at parties.

[Bonefish Blues]

hidetheelephants said:

Bonefish Blues said:

It's hard to escape the oft-repeated trope that we're just rubbish at these Grands Projets

The contractors are getting on with it; that it's a political football is an inevitable consequence of being a multidecade project in a country where the average govt lasts 3 years and most MPs are people you'd avoid at parties.

Other countries have similar issues, I'm sure, but seem to agree it, plan it, and build it in a way we find challenging - what's the difference? Serious Q, btw.

[Mr Penguin]

Bonefish Blues said:

Other countries have similar issues, I'm sure, but seem to agree it, plan it, and build it in a way we find challenging - what's the difference? Serious Q, btw.

I don't think many do. Countries like China do a lot of things that would rightly not be accepted here, both in health and safety and in getting the land. The USA have dithered on this for years, despite having the money and perfect locations/distances in the North East and California. Germany started building decades earlier than we did, but also had the same problems getting their network up and running. Ireland's network is atrocious.

Historically, we vastly underfunded British Rail for decades, to the point that other countries sent people over to see how they managed to keep the lights on, and increasing spending on building new lines wasn't going to be on the cards. This is also alongside a general decrease in train usage in the UK between the 1940s and 1990s.

London and the South East is incredibly expensive and densely populated, which makes buying land and building very hard (which also applies to the new London airport), and the routes would typically go through the Cotswolds, which is also expensive and has campaigners complaining about tearing up Britain's countryside (who also complain about new roads taking up too much space).

There are usually existing concerns who don't want the competition too - in the case of HS2, road haulage companies, existing rail service providers, airlines, airports, and coach companies will all lose business. Those companies will lobby government and launch legal challenges alongside any unions, residents, and environmental campaigners. The same also applies to anyone who would miss out but could plausibly be included - e.g. HS3 could go through Derby and miss out Nottingham or go through Nottingham and miss out Derby.

It wasn't a problem in Victorian times because people saw railways as the future, the country wasn't nearly as densely populated, there often wasn't a competing form of transport, and nobody cared about health and safety.

[Plymo]

How much cheaper would it have been as a project if it was just a "normal" fast line (say 125mph) rather than the crazy speeds they are hoping for with HS2?
My railway knowledge is limited but I'm assuming that a conventional line would be cheaper as it could have tighter curves and so on. And presumably wouldn't need special trains

[andy97]

Plymo said:

How much cheaper would it have been as a project if it was just a "normal" fast line (say 125mph) rather than the crazy speeds they are hoping for with HS2?
My railway knowledge is limited but I'm assuming that a conventional line would be cheaper as it could have tighter curves and so on. And presumably wouldn't need special trains

Also could be built on “traditional” ballast track, with slightly less tight tolerances, rather than on concrete slab track.

[e30ftw]

You would still need to build the tunnels and bridges, buy the land line the contractors pockets. Implement a signaling system

Savings wouldn’t be that big,

[Chrisgr31]

e30ftw said:

You would still need to build the tunnels and bridges, buy the land line the contractors pockets. Implement a signaling system

Savings wouldn’t be that big,

Would maintenance costs be higher with ballasted track?

[2xChevrons]

Mr Penguin said:

I don't think many do. Countries like China do a lot of things that would rightly not be accepted here, both in health and safety and in getting the land. The USA have dithered on this for years, despite having the money and perfect locations/distances in the North East and California. Germany started building decades earlier than we did, but also had the same problems getting their network up and running. Ireland's network is atrocious.

Historically, we vastly underfunded British Rail for decades, to the point that other countries sent people over to see how they managed to keep the lights on, and increasing spending on building new lines wasn't going to be on the cards. This is also alongside a general decrease in train usage in the UK between the 1940s and 1990s.

London and the South East is incredibly expensive and densely populated, which makes buying land and building very hard (which also applies to the new London airport), and the routes would typically go through the Cotswolds, which is also expensive and has campaigners complaining about tearing up Britain's countryside (who also complain about new roads taking up too much space).

There are usually existing concerns who don't want the competition too - in the case of HS2, road haulage companies, existing rail service providers, airlines, airports, and coach companies will all lose business. Those companies will lobby government and launch legal challenges alongside any unions, residents, and environmental campaigners. The same also applies to anyone who would miss out but could plausibly be included - e.g. HS3 could go through Derby and miss out Nottingham or go through Nottingham and miss out Derby.

It wasn't a problem in Victorian times because people saw railways as the future, the country wasn't nearly as densely populated, there often wasn't a competing form of transport, and nobody cared about health and safety.

All very good stuff.

I would also add that a problem Britain has over the long term when it comes to big spending/procurement/infrastructure projects is the tendency swing between famine and feast - for instance, prior to the construction of HS1 (between 1998 and 2007), the last full-spec bit of main line railway to built in the UK was the Selby Diversion (built 1980-1983, and then only 14 miles of route), while the last big electrification project was the ECML which had ended in 1991 - that's a gap of 15 years for the civil engineering and eight years for the electrical side of things - more than long enough for the companies involved to scale down or fold and all the people involved to disperse, retire, go abroad, change careers and for all their skills, familiarities, currencies and competencies to elapse. So when you have your next big project a decade or so hence you're faced with having to regenerate all those skills from scratch, which adds to the time and cost at nearly every level.

When the Japanese state railways were electrifying they deliberately did it at a relatively slow but continual pace, and with a relatively small number of dedicated workers. But the project was organised and scheduled over decades, with surveyors, managers, engineers, foremen, installers, linemen and track workers going entire careers doing nothing but stringing up wires, and as they retired new generations were brought in. They quickly got the entire process of electrifying a railway down to a fine art and could, mile-for-mile do it more quickly and at lower cost than anywhere else in the developed world. And despite working at a lower tempo than a British railway electrification project, the Japanese railways still managed to electrify over 10,000 miles of track (73 per cent of the JR network) while the UK is currently at less than 4000 miles (just under 40 per cent of the network) because they did it slowly but relentlessly, while we do it is disruptive fits and starts and have to learn (or buy) the skills and knowledge each time. I believe the Japanese did something similar with their Shinkansen system - they had a 'silo' of specialists who did nothing for years other than become experts in their particular job in building high-speed rail.

The stop-start nature of work, and the resulting loss of skills, hampers all sorts of British big-budget projects. Shipbuilding and road construction are other classic examples.

Plymo said:

How much cheaper would it have been as a project if it was just a "normal" fast line (say 125mph) rather than the crazy speeds they are hoping for with HS2?
My railway knowledge is limited but I'm assuming that a conventional line would be cheaper as it could have tighter curves and so on. And presumably wouldn't need special trains

In general the cost difference between 'standard' rail and High Speed Rail are pretty much insignificant once you've decided to 'build a railway'. You could probably identify a figure, and it would be 'a lot of money' because it's an inherently expensive endeavour. But as a proportion of the cost of the HS2 project, it's not very much and ends up looking like worse value for money. The 'High Speed-ness' of the railway is not where the costs lie - it's almost everything else.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Sunday 29th January 23:46