How might the enormous projected cost of HS2 be reduced while still retaining the maximum stated benefits of the project?
In last week’s poll, we asked readers what they thought would be the most effective method to reduce the cost of HS2 – currently projected at some £88 billion – while still retaining the most important advantages of the project.
_________________________________________________________
Further reading
- Last week’s poll: revisiting HS2
- Five train-builders make shortlist for £2.75bn HS2 contract
- HS2 contracts worth £6.6bn announced
_________________________________________________________
With a resounding 45 per cent of the vote, scrapping the entire project was by far and away the most popular option. A quarter of respondents felt that the best option was to only build the Northern Powerhouse part of the line, providing a much-needed boost to a part of the country’s rail infrastructure that many feel has been neglected.
Just 8 per cent backed the idea of a cheaper London terminus at Old Oak Common, a policy that is perhaps the most likely outcome once the dust settles on the HS2 review. This was closely followed (7%) by reducing the overall speed of the service in an effort to curb costs. An unusually high number of readers (15%) chose the ‘none of the above’ option, perhaps reflecting the complexity of the issue and the mess the project has found itself in.
“HS2 has managed to spend £7billion without putting down a single new rail,” wrote John Hartley. “Scrap it now. I note the latest Pendolino tilting trains, can do 155mph. Given the small size of the UK, 155mph is fast enough.”
Graham Heasman commented: “Each step of this project has had costs underestimated and benefits overestimated. We are now being told by the boss of HS2 that likely costs will be north of £80 billion (initial estimates were £36 billion) but with a projected completion date of 2040 (pushed back from 2033) the benefit-cost ratio is diminishing with each announcement.”
Elsewhere, Trevor noted that another overrunning project could help offset some of the costs of this one.
“Given the £18 billion Crossrail project is nearing completion, Londoners will have excellent connectivity to Old Oak Common,” he wrote. “Dropping Euston would appear to be a no-brainer.”
While there was undoubtedly an appetite amongst a majority of readers to scrap or restrict the scope of the project, some warned against cost-cutting measures that could return to haunt the development.
“Be careful what you wish for,” said Rog Laker. “Crossrail has suffered from earlier cost-cutting (and other problems) only to return to something resembling the original figure. Scrapping the mis-named HS2 (can we just call it North-South Rail?) won’t solve the problem of the strategic capacity deficit on the rail network. If it’s currently unaffordable then it’s not the speed of the line but of its delivery which needs reducing, with eg more phasing as saved the CTRL over 20 years ago. In the end it’ll cost whatever it needs to cost, which discounted over its centuries-long life will be seen in perspective.”
Why has no one suggested reducing the maximum train length of the trains to 300m or 12 coaches. This would add capacity to classic compatible trains where most needed, and reduce expensive over- capacity on main routes.
How about putting the current rail system right first. Currently a total mess.
High speed trains are beyond stupid.
Thousands of acres of real estate with 0.001% utilisation time.
Thousands of tons of hardware with the same utilisation times!!!
You do the maths!
As most of the expensive land purchase seems to have been completed for Phase 1 completing this phase but with slower capability may have some merit. This could potentially be extended to link up with an East/West line
Virgin West Coast trains are 9 or 11 coaches anyway, Graham, and I have lost count of how many announcements I have heard over the past year (I am a regular traveller between Glasgow and London) apologising for the overcrowding on the train. Not much over capacity on the 17.30 to EUS to GLC (Friday night) or the 13.38 GLC to EUS (Sunday afternoon)! I think there is certainly scope to improve the existing rail network first before HS2 – my 12 year old nephew is not convinced it will happen!
Just a thought with little knowledge about the scale of energy required to power a train.
How much of the infrastructure is for the overhead electrification? Can the power unit be replaced with alternatives? Zero emission Fuel Cells? Energy recovery storage solutions? The Automotive & Aerospace industries are looking into different energy methods, I’ve not heard the same for the rail industry? (It may be being investigated but I’ve not heard anything to the same scale as Auto / Aero industries)
Can this knowledge get transferred across?
This country used to be great at investing stuff, lets be at the forefront of new innovations.
As a mega-project outside of the London zone, it is amazing that it ever got so far!
All long-term mega projects overspend, partly because of the unpredictability of inflation, partly because when schemes are evaluated financial-optimism is essential or the scheme dies immediately. On this basis no long term schemes would ever be implemented…….. everything would be pfi…… OMG. / LOL……. “They’re coming to take me away ha,ha”…..
Given the £18 billion Crossrail project is nearing completion, Londoners will have excellent connectivity to Old Oak Common. Dropping Euston would appear to be a no-brainer …
Scrap the righthand fork north of Birmingham and extend the Manchester line to Leeds. This would provide the Leeds Manchester link and still achieve significant savings overall.
First step is to halt and prevent any further destruction of Ancient Woodland UNTIL a firm decision is made to cease work on the southern section. Once that is made then, as indicated above, use modern propulsion systems , not 1950’s pantograph systems and only build the Northern Poorhouse line.
Run longer trains on the existing lines by extending selected stations (though several stations need no extension).
Consider door-to-door times when calculating benefits. Right now there are many points where a West Coast line journey can start, but with HS2 people will be travelling far further to the first station.
Let’s get the Manchester-Sheffield motorway tunnel!!
Phase 2b Bham to Leeds is the bit that delivers relief to Midland and East coast railway.If you scrap Bham to London then you cannot deliver capacity gains for Network Rail as you cannot divert inter city traffic away from classic network
Given the current cost of this fiasco, which will rise, and which won’t deliver on it’s stated objectives, people should realise that money will still need to be spent on upgrading the existing national rail infrastructure – where is this money coming from ?
Scrapping HS2 is the only sensible option, spend the money on the rest of the country rather than this London vanity project
A vanity project which will only serve the interests of the inner London elite. So they can get more people into and out of London each day. Other than construction it won’t provide any benefits to anyone else. It is a people carrying project not even freight. And all to make it half an hour or so quicker to get from the centre of Birmingham to the centre of London! What about links to and from these centres, faster trains doesn’t necessarily mean more passengers as the train intervals have to be much longer physically to allow for stopping and signalling purposes. Not a lot to be gained especially as the commuting travellers need to travel at specific times. A much better purpose would be to invest instead in more renewable energy generators, upgraded national grid, and orders of magnitude more EV fast charging outlets at each current fossil fuel station.
Be careful what you wish for. Crossrail has suffered from earlier cost-cutting (and other problems) only to return to something resembling the original figure. Scrapping the mis-named HS2 (can we just call it North-South Rail?) won’t solve the problem of the strategic capacity deficit on the rail network. If it’s currently unaffordable then it’s not the speed of the line but of its delivery which needs reducing, with eg more phasing as saved the CTRL over 20 years ago. In the end it’ll cost whatever it needs to cost, which discounted over its centuries-long life will be seen in perspective.
We can’t run the current trains at the expected speeds, how the hell are they going to run at 250 MPH. Leaves on track, by kled lines when sun shines, rain, snow, etc
Horrendous waste of money
The problem is that HS2 was not conceived as part of a network.
A well planned rail alternative NETWORK has been proposed by
High Speed UK highspeeduk.co.uk
– cheaper – £30bn less than HS2 & HS3 plans
– better – connected with average journey time reductions of 45% to city centre stations, linking to Heathrow & Manchester Airports
– smarter – improves regional rail & integrates with existing rail infrastructure, with a blend of new high speed lines, upgraded existing routes and restored routes
– cleaner – operates at 360 km/h (225 MPH) max, with no over designed and unneeded allowance of HS2 for a future maximum speed of 400 km/h (250 MPH).
A thorough improvement of urban transport with the money saved is also needed eg. trams (lower cost Ultra Light Trams) on main routes have been shown to revitalise city centres, shift car drivers to public transport (~ 30% modal shift), improve air quality (less brake, tyre and road dust PM10, 2,5s…),…
see bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/development-ultra-light-trams/
Why is there all this emphasis on ‘journey time reductions’ ? Surely most people just want regular, reliable journeys at a reasonable cost and with a chance of a seat Given that you can do work, read a book, chat to a colleague is it really such a priority to shave 10 or 20 minutes off a journey ?
A Virgin Pendolino is either 5MW or 6MW depending on whether it has 9 or 11 coaches. That’s 50 times the power of a Nissan Leaf and it has to go 400 miles from London to Glasgow without re-fuelling or re-charging.
You have to be unintelligent and completely lacking in any common sense to think HS2 would be a good idea. Unfortunately that is the requirement if you wish to be an M.P.
I do see the whole the HS2 as being another London support mechanism (for commuters) and not at all network oriented.
The rest of the country needs a rail network – infrastructure for business. And it seems likely that new rail-links (as opposed to a heavy injection of steroids) as part of a full coverage UK network are worthy infrastructure projects for wealth creation (especially for those parts of the UK that are ignored by the intercity railtrack ) – not just for commuting but also goods
Isn’t it a pity that the old Great Central track was ripped up and broken in the ’60’s? That could have been revived and HST trains would have given a useful extra service in the south.
We need a service that everyone can access easily, not just those in London.
200mph is not necessary. The WCML Pendolinos are excellent when given the chance to do 125mph!
Although we seem somewhat committed to significant expenditure on this high profile project; surely we can use the acquired assets les extravagantly, a more conventional railtrack, perhaps. then with the advent of the electric bus/car and all the benefits that apply, surely the saved monies could be used to benefit one and all far more if invested in charging points and battery technology, like Johnson Mathey’s !!!?
When China builds its high speed rail lines it takes the straight line route, and relocates anything / anyone in its way, but does this properly by building the new town before knocking down the old one. Straight lines would make HS2 viable. We can stop NIMBYism by moving the BY!. And why should strategic infrastructure be economically viable anyway? Can’t they just be done because we need them?
Overhead wires? Isn’t this old technology, very ugly, expensive and dangerous. Wait until the best new technology has been proven to be reliable. Here’s one off the wall. What about nuclear powerplants like in submarines. I can see the drawbacks but isn’t that what engineers do – solve problems?
A good summary of the present state of the railways can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761352/rail-factsheet-2018.pdf
the raw statistics in the section “Rail travel is concentrated in London and the South East” might lead one to the conclusion there is no point in HS2 at all … yet I suspect there is a ‘chicken and egg’ element to it … if rail services are good (or at least comprehensive) people will use them, if not they buy a car – and once bought, it pays to maximise the investment
by the time HS2 is up an running it will be old technology, options are maglev, no overhead wires motors or gearboxes and no ‘ leaves on the line’ and the only noise is the wind, this is already in use in China and proven, and I believe engineers in Germany are developing a self charging Hybrid system.
Priority should be given to East/West services in the north and upgrading and improving our existing North/ South network.
Not ready yet – but who knows by the time the project is finished.
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-trains-be-the-future-of-rail
The last time we spoke about this, I suggested that they should scrap wheel based trains & go for magnetic levitation trains as this is what will happen soon in Europe. We could put these on top of the existing lines and run them both without new tracks elsewhere. Wheels based trains will be old hat in ten years time & out of date. We need to see some new technology at work here or get left behind the rest of the world!
Trevor’s comment “… if rail services are good (or at least comprehensive) people will use them, if not they buy a car – and once bought, it pays to maximise the investment” is most pertinent.
If the rail network one links too is not appropriate (too distant – say an hours drive, or does not go where you want to) then improving its speed/capacity is pointless (partly because if there is no capacity anyway – so doubling it is useless). (And so long distance road traffic still required…)
The development of new technology sounds interesting;.
I do like the sound of MagLev – but do not know what the issues are to its development and deployment. I suspect that the track is more expensive and, possibly, the vehicles. I do not know how the power is fed to the trains or tracks, but would like to know how these things are progressing. I believe that the logical thing would be to do the research (the technology) for a low cost rural line; if the cost/deployment criteria can be so done then the deployment for high speed vanity projects should be easier.
Hydrogen trains have been mentioned but I suspect that the energy storage system construction might be an issue (Energy densities MJ/L) 5.323 Hydrogen at 690 bar , sensible thermal energy storage at 1000 degC between 2 and 5 {obviously more if rack up temperature},…).
If costs are to be reduced then (as I believe Musk has identified and looking at ) then tunnelling costs need to be reduced (is there any UK R&D on developing low cost machines and systems); perhaps the funding would be more wisely spent on this?
Each step of this project has had costs underestimated and benefits overestimated. We are now being told by the boss of HS2 that likely costs will be north of £80 billion (initial estimates were £36 billion) but with a projected completion date of 2040 (pushed back from 2033) the benefit cost ratio is diminishing with each announcement. At current projections, this will cost every U.K. household over £5,000 and most of us will never use it, or indeed afford the ticket prices if we did. This is a gravy train for those with vested interests and will be paid for by the many for the benefit of the few.
We have more pressing transport issues which a far lower sum of money would resolve.
Magnetic levitation trains
A poor description – https://www.theengineer.co.uk/maglev-dream-rises-in-the-east/
The late great Professor Eric Laithwaite: ( a real physicist)
‘The wonders of magnetism and the linear motor’ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU
Amazing footage of the Hovertrain test track and a clip from BBC Tomorrow’s World Science program about Maglev trains. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QmLVSuMRSw
Shanghai Maglev Train – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFvntsbGP_Q
Or maybe we should use this 118yr technology – Wuppertal
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDDd4Rixi4
HS2 has managed to spend £7billion without putting down a single new rail. Scrap it now.
I note the latest Pendolino tilting trains, can do 155mph. Given the small size of the UK, 155mph is fast enough. Just upgrade the existing East & West Coast mainlines for 155mph. Also upgrade the spurs off them, to minor cities & large towns to 110mph. That stops those trains being a rolling roadblock on the mainlines. Also add the flyovers & extra track, where there is room, to minimise clashes between branch lines & main lines.
Make it single track. There are a lot of people in Birmingham who would like to get to London at 200mph but very few in London in a rush to get to Birmingham.
It’s not the people in Birmingham who will be rushing to London, it’s the people in London who will move to Birmingham for cheap housing compared to London so they get quick transport to work & back. There are loads of flats and apartments already built ready for them to buy next door to the railway in Digbeth area and next to the science museum!