nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

HS2

Muahahaha

Couldnt find a thread on this, mods if there is one please merge

The final decision on whether or not to go ahead with HS2 should be coming in the next week or two. A mate in TfL tells me the feeling is that Boris has always been big on infrastructure and will sanction it despite the rising costs which are now off the scale. On top of this Boris' closest advisor has labelled it as a "disaster zone" and many southern based Tory MPs are opposed to proceeding.

Latest price on it is £106 billion and thats up from £55 billion which is up from £30bn. Recent leaks on a report confirmed that even the £106bn figure is not achievable and now they've built in a contingency bringing it to £130bn. And even the £130bn figure is accepted as rising even further as the second part of the line (Birmingham to Manchester) wouldnt be complete until 2040 at the earliest. As costs have gone up the cost/benefit ratio has gone down. What started as a £2.30 return to the economy for every £1 invested has now turned into £1.30 for every pound spent.

Arguments for the HS2 include saving carbon emissions over car based transport and that this brand new route will then free up lots of capacity on routes that are being used now but inefficient at mixing high speed rail and more local routes. Overall the high speed element isnt really that high speed- a Manchester to London journey on HS2 would only be 40 minutes quicker than it is right now

Politicians in northern cities are now saying that their preferred option is to instead build the planned Northern Powerhorse Railway which would connect Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds and serve much more northerners who use that route over trips down south to London.

If Boris does go ahead with HS2 as expected (and there has been £7bn sunk costs on CPOs already) then its fast looking like HS2 could be the worlds most expensive railway.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Muahahaha

Xwebstar2 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder though in this age how ferrying people around faster actually benefits commerce

Its a fair point in the age of teleconferencing and fast broadband. But it seems people still do business with people face to face. On another thread a poster spoke about his company sending an employee from here to Hong Kong for a 30 minute meeting and then back again.

Sam Russell

Last Stop wrote: »

Thought the exact same thing myself but revisited the map and realised that the current Leeds route serves some pretty large cities including Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield with a combined population of over 2m between them.

Long term I can definitely see a case for a line from Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - York

I meant to continue the Manchester spur on to Leeds as well as the Leeds one. That way there would be two routes to Leeds from Birmingham. Not all people travel from end to end.

It was planned to do Liverpool to Leeds via Manchester as part of the Northern powerhouse. It might start 2040.

I think their HS2 is a bit like our Metrolink - it will be expensive and might happen some day soon - or not.

Markcheese

Dunno how true it is , but on the BBC news website they were implying that a lot of the costs of the London -birmingham are partly "vanity " or bigger,better ,faster,more ..
So hs2 had to be faster than tgv , okay so less curves and solid track ( not ballasted )
It had to handle 18 trains an hour (not sure if that's each way ) ,much more complex signaling
Originally it was supposed to depart London Euston ,not sure if that's still the case .. but apparently there's 8 or 9 billion there straight off ,

BBC News - HS2: Six reasons why the rail route is so expensive
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51415590

Lord Fairlord

If Mr Johnson is open to having a bridge from a remote part of Northern Ireland to a remote part of Scotland perhaps he'd be open to a high speed line from Crewe to Holyhead...

cgcsb

Actually the economics of having a high speed line from Crewe to Hollyhead would stack up a lot better than a road bridge from some Scottish island to rural county Antrim. Dublin to London is the world's second busiest international air route, if there were a fast sail rail alternative you'd be on a winner. It would also mean a faster non air alternative for journies between all of northern Ireland and the more populated parts of the UK.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Actually the economics of having a high speed line from Crewe to Hollyhead would stack up a lot better than a road bridge from some Scottish island to rural county Antrim. Dublin to London is the world's second busiest international air route, if there were a fast sail rail alternative you'd be on a winner. It would also mean a faster non air alternative for journies between all of northern Ireland and the more populated parts of the UK.

Add high speed rail from NI to Dublin Port, and a high speed ferry, then surely a winner. Airports require attendance an hour ahead of departure, plus a security check, and an hour and a half flying time for a 50 min flight. If you have baggage, then more delay. It ends you up at Heathrow, with a further travel to Paddington, or the slow underground line. It all adds to delay.

The NI/Scotland bridge would cost much more than the high speed lines and ferries to get to Crewe.

Muahahaha

Markcheese wrote: »

Dunno how true it is , but on the BBC news website they were implying that a lot of the costs of the London -birmingham are partly "vanity " or bigger,better ,faster,more ..
So hs2 had to be faster than tgv , okay so less curves and solid track ( not ballasted )
It had to handle 18 trains an hour (not sure if that's each way ) ,much more complex signaling
Originally it was supposed to depart London Euston ,not sure if that's still the case .. but apparently there's 8 or 9 billion there straight off ,

BBC News - HS2: Six reasons why the rail route is so expensive
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51415590

Interesting article. It is not surprising that the costs of the project are so high when they are building 25 miles of new tunnels and 12 miles of new viaducts on the first phase from London to Birmingham alone. No going back now that the decision has been made, its full steam ahead for a post Brexit Britain.

D.L.R.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Add high speed rail from NI to Dublin Port, and a high speed ferry, then surely a winner. Airports require attendance an hour ahead of departure, plus a security check, and an hour and a half flying time for a 50 min flight. If you have baggage, then more delay. It ends you up at Heathrow, with a further travel to Paddington, or the slow underground line. It all adds to delay.

The NI/Scotland bridge would cost much more than the high speed lines and ferries to get to Crewe.

Better public transport access to Dublin Ferryport would certainly be welcome. Developing world standards currently.

Muahahaha

There is a ceremonial breaking of ground today on phase 1 (London to Birmingham) of HS2 so expect to see Boris on the news later this evening with in his hi-vis, hard hat and shovel in hand.

HS2 has announced the formal start of construction of the high-speed rail line between London and the West Midlands, which it claims will create 22,000 jobs.
The prime minister, Boris Johnson, was expected to attend a ceremonial launch of the first shovels in the ground on Friday for the main civil engineering contracts.
The contracts to build the first phase of the line, including viaducts, tunnels, and stations at Euston and Old Oak Common, were signed off by the Treasury during lockdown, after the government approved the controversial £106bn project in February.
The company HS2 Ltd said most work to date had been preparatory, including design, ground clearance and demolition.
With coronavirus putting limitations on work since the formal notice to proceed in April, it said the launch on Friday of full construction work was “a step closer to reality” for the high-speed line, which has been more than 10 years in gestation and will not see full intercity services for another 10 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/04/hs2-construction-of-106bn-high-speed-rail-line-officially-starts

This phase involves-
300 new bridges
70 new viaducts
Six new train stations along the route including a new Curzon Street station in Birmingham
An extension to London Euston train station
22,000 workers on top of the 10,000 already employed in preparatory works

So as of today the entire HS2 project is costed at £106bn with phase 1 at £45bn of that. 2029 is the earliest date that high speed trains might run, 2036 is the latest projected date for full services from London to Birmingham. It will be interesting to see how it progresses over the next decade. Injunctions are already flying around to get protestors off land, there is occupations within the ancient forests that are due to be felled for the route to go through.

Geuze

Those costs are frightening..

French LGV seem much cheaper.

Muahahaha

Yeah they are and the headline figure of £106bn isnt even accepted, a leaked report said they are thinking it could be £130bn. Whats worse is the cost/benefits of the project has plummeted down to £1/£1.30

Muahahaha wrote: »

Latest price on it is £106 billion and thats up from £55 billion which is up from £30bn. Recent leaks on a report confirmed that even the £106bn figure is not achievable and now they've built in a contingency bringing it to £130bn. And even the £130bn figure is accepted as rising even further as the second part of the line (Birmingham to Manchester) wouldnt be complete until 2040 at the earliest. As costs have gone up the cost/benefit ratio has gone down. What started as a £2.30 return to the economy for every £1 invested has now turned into £1.30 for every pound spent.

Anyone know is there an international benchmark for cost to benefit ratios of large infrastructural spends? Whats the point at which most rational governments would say its just too expensive for what it will deliver? Would imagine HS2 has long surpassed that point if it is only delivering £1.30 for every £1 spent with costs set to rise even further.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Those costs are frightening..

French LGV seem much cheaper.

The LGV SEA is 302 km new build plus connections

The total cost seems to be EUR 9bn, that's for the new line plus interconnecting lines, control centres, capacity enhancements, etc.

How can HS2 be over ten times that???????

Markcheese

Massive property prices in London ,.25 miles of tunnel , 12 miles of viaduct , and most of the rest through cuttings , diversion of services in densely populated southern england ... System designed for a 18 trains an hour , at very high speeds, trains up to 500m long , that's a lot of platform capacity and signaling,and points ...