HS2 high-speed London-Birmingham route rail project - discussion

[beesonthewhatnow]

The latest projected cost of HS2 with extensions to Manchester and Leeds is forecast £106 billion. A northern MP says it is not value for money, and he wants to increase passenger capacity of trains from north to London, instead of the HS2.

The recommendation of the latest review is to build the phase 1 of HS2 from London to Birmingham. I think the call to increase the passenger capacity of existing rail system is cost effective, efficient, and makes economic sense.

Victorians built railways from private funds of shareholders. There was a boom in private sector railways until the arrival of motorways and the car ownership. Now the railways have to compete with budget airlines. HS2 high-speed rail is an excellent idea to move with the times. However, it must be value for money, and should not be funded by tax payers’ money. It should be funded, built and operated by private sector entrepreneurs. They could be Japanese, Chinese or anybody, privately operated and commercially viable.

The current rail system based on government funded Network Rail should concentrate on meeting the capacity needs of the passengers and standards of punctuality at present and in the future. High-speed HS2 or whatever should be handed to private operators of any consortium or origin, for the use by tourists and businessmen or anyone who can afford and willing to pay the price of a more advanced train journey.

No.

 

[teuchter]

The latest projected cost of HS2 with extensions to Manchester and Leeds is forecast £106 billion. A northern MP says it is not value for money, and he wants to increase passenger capacity of trains from north to London, instead of the HS2.

The recommendation of the latest review is to build the phase 1 of HS2 from London to Birmingham. I think the call to increase the passenger capacity of existing rail system is cost effective, efficient, and makes economic sense.

Victorians built railways from private funds of shareholders. There was a boom in private sector railways until the arrival of motorways and the car ownership. Now the railways have to compete with budget airlines. HS2 high-speed rail is an excellent idea to move with the times. However, it must be value for money, and should not be funded by tax payers’ money. It should be funded, built and operated by private sector entrepreneurs. They could be Japanese, Chinese or anybody, privately operated and commercially viable.

The current rail system based on government funded Network Rail should concentrate on meeting the capacity needs of the passengers and standards of punctuality at present and in the future. High-speed HS2 or whatever should be handed to private operators of any consortium or origin, for the use by tourists and businessmen or anyone who can afford and is willing to pay the price of a more advanced train journey.

This is all based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of HS2. The current network needs HS2 as part of it, in order to meet capacity requirements. Read the thread.

 

[AnandLeo]

The present funding arrangements of the HS2 and cost escalations do not meet the financial credibility of spending of tax payers’ money for increasing the passenger capacity. That is the controversy. The HS2 I have reinvented will increase the passenger capacity. However, it will be a separate venture and transport system.

 

[teuchter]

So you reckon that if you take the current cost of HS2, and subtract the cost of increasing capacity of the existing system (ignoring what that actually means for now), then a private venture could build something like HS2 for significantly less money than that and make a profit from it?

 

[BigTom]

How do you increase passenger capacity without laying new track? The WMCL has been upgraded, I'm a layman but my understanding is there's nothing significant you can do to improve that.
If you're laying new tracks, they might as well be high speed rail, right? split up the lines to increase capacity by having more consistency between trains with regards to speed and stops as well as by adding an extra line. The cost of a high speed line and a normal line is probably basically the same I'd guess, assuming you need to build/upgrade stations in the same way for either.

Does that northern MP have a point that I'm missing or are they being as stupid as it seems?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You increase line capacity by running everything on it at the same speed. In other words, have a dedicated high speed line away from all the local and freight services.

 

[teuchter]

How do you increase passenger capacity without laying new track? The WMCL has been upgraded, I'm a layman but my understanding is there's nothing significant you can do to improve that.
If you're laying new tracks, they might as well be high speed rail, right? split up the lines to increase capacity by having more consistency between trains with regards to speed and stops as well as by adding an extra line. The cost of a high speed line and a normal line is probably basically the same I'd guess, assuming you need to build/upgrade stations in the same way for either.

Does that northern MP have a point that I'm missing or are they being as stupid as it seems?

Yes that's my understanding, it's not easy or cheap to "upgrade" the existing system in a way that creates comparable extra capacity, and doing so massively disrupts existing services while the work is going on.

If Dr Beeching hadn't had his way, maybe we would be in a slightly different situation now, but especially in the area between Birmingham and London we are trying to squeeze ever more traffic onto a network that's already been reduced from what was built by the Victorians. But the network built by the Victorians was, and is, not designed for our current conception of what high speed means.

 

[AnandLeo]

So you reckon that if you take the current cost of HS2, and subtract the cost of increasing capacity of the existing system (ignoring what that actually means for now), then a private venture could build something like HS2 for significantly less money than that and make a profit from it?

Not quite in that context. I am suggesting present system of Network Rail should explore a programme of increasing capacity for some plausible cost. The idea of high-speed rail linking London to north should be offered to a global consortium to finance, build, and operate. It is a venture for global entrepreneurs to consider.

 

[AnandLeo]

You increase line capacity by running everything on it at the same speed. In other words, have a dedicated high speed line away from all the local and freight services.

I remember in the 70s the mainline trains had such a fast track. This was before high-speed rail in UK.

 

[AnandLeo]

How do you increase passenger capacity without laying new track? ...........If you're laying new tracks, they might as well be high speed rail, right?

I appreciate that there have been arguments about difficulties in increasing capacity within existing system of rail tracks. I also dare it can be done, and they always do these if they have the will. However, adding one or two tracks to existing system does not mean they should be high-speed. The present trains run at maximum of 125mph. These are not high-speed trains, which run at 150 mph or much faster. High-speed rail tracks should not run with normal tracks. They can run in parallel in an entirely separate corridor.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I remember in the 70s the mainline trains had such a fast track. This was before high-speed rail in UK.

No, they had sections with higher speed lines and passing loops. There were still bottlenecks.

I don't think you quite understand just what's required for high speed rail.

 

[teuchter]

Not quite in that context. I am suggesting present system of Network Rail should explore a programme of increasing capacity for some plausible cost. The idea of high-speed rail linking London to north should be offered to a global consortium to finance, build, and operate. It is a venture for global entrepreneurs to consider.

You've not answered the question. In the context you describe, you think that such a HS line could be built privately without any public finance, and then make enough money to pay for itself?

 

[Chilli.s]

I'm not so concerned about speed tbh, it's more reliability and availability. Last train back to west country on a saturday night at 10. 30 is no good for anyone. Especially if the previous train is cancelled making it dangerously crowded with standing for an hour as booked seats are gone. It's a fuckin joke of a service.

 

[Supine]

I appreciate that there have been arguments about difficulties in increasing capacity within existing system of rail tracks. I also dare it can be done, and they always do these if they have the will. However, adding one or two tracks to existing system does not mean they should be high-speed. The present trains run at maximum of 125mph. These are not high-speed trains, which run at 150 mph or much faster. High-speed rail tracks should not run with normal tracks. They can run in parallel in an entirely separate corridor.

I think you just invented HS2. Congratulations

 

[AnandLeo]

You've not answered the question. In the context you describe, you think that such a HS line could be built privately without any public finance, and then make enough money to pay for itself?

Yes, that is the supposition.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, that is the supposition.

So your objection is not the scope of the project but because you think that it can only be made profitable if it's financed and managed privately?

 

[Dogsauce]

I remember in the 70s the mainline trains had such a fast track. This was before high-speed rail in UK.

There were far fewer of them then and they weren’t running at the same speed. Fast trains don’t mix well with slower services, they need places to overtake, which means loops with points (which may need to be passed slower, require signalling, maintenance, and can fail). It’s very difficult to integrate 125mph express services with 100mph regional services, 60mph freight, stopping local services etc. The higher the speed, the harder it is to balance this mix. They are tweaking things to make small improvements (grade separated junctions, new signalling systems, reinstated loops etc.) but fundamentally the easiest solution is a new line built to modern standards to take the fast trains out of the mix. The remaining infrastructure can then use the slack for faster regional services, more freight paths and so on. Nothing else can achieve this.

I think a lot of the opposition to HS2 comes from a misunderstanding of how infrastructure projects are funded these days. There isn’t a pot of money sat in a drawer that can be spent however a government chooses, things are built on debt. Money has to be borrowed and a project has to produce a return that will repay the cost of this expenditure. I’m not going to defend this way of how things are done, but that is what we have. You can’t just cancel the project and say ‘right, now I’ve got eighty billion quid to spend on whatever else I want, let’s reopen Keswick or Colne-Skipton or whatever other pet project someone might hold dear. Any alternative scheme will still have to demonstrate a return that makes the investment viable. In most cases projects won’t do this, else they might have already attracted the investment independently of whatever other major schemes are being built.

(Related to this there are other discussions that could be had about infrastructure spending being treated as government debt, how much bullshitting there is in value assessments, the general inertia in getting spades in the ground and so on, but the above system is what we have to work inside at present)

 

[Dogsauce]

(And related to the above is that government can borrow money at a cheaper rate than the private sector, so a privately funded scheme will always cost more, which will be recouped from passengers or swindled off the government somehow - see also the bollocks that is PFI)

 

[AnandLeo]

So your objection is not the scope of the project but because you think that it can only be made profitable if it's financed and managed privately?

Exactly. However, that opinion is elicited by the ongoing farce of escalating costs in exponential scale. There may be many other rail projects such as Crossrail Project that have increased costs, and delayed in completion, and I am not making any comments. However, this project of Northern rail connection to London that has scope of future expansion kindled my interest. Mesmerized by the efficiency of some of the rail services in the east, it just gave me the idea if we can make them to run advanced rail services here in UK, and transfer all of the business risks to them. Of course, such a venture can go ahead only after the feasibility studies and project appraisals. On this transport service, the British government is not entering into any contract for future payments, like PFI of hospitals, and some other services. The entrepreneur has to find a demand, and supply for the consumers. It is up to them to appraise the project’s viability, and indeed satisfy the UK government. Of course, there will be legal, financial, environmental, and other controls imposed by the government on the foreign investment on infrastructure projects like that.

 

[AnandLeo]

I remember in the 70s the mainline trains had such a fast track. This was before high-speed rail in UK.

I was talking of ordinary trains running on ordinary tracks, and the fast trains whiz past slow trains, may be at about 80 mph without any hindrance or delay. There was nothing special about it, just efficient normal trains.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I was talking of ordinary trains running on ordinary tracks, and the fast trains whiz past slow trains, may be at about 80 mph without any hindrance or delay. There was nothing special about it, just efficient normal trains.

bangs head against desk

 

[teuchter]

Exactly. However, that opinion is elicited by the ongoing farce of escalating costs in exponential scale. There may be many other rail projects such as Crossrail Project that have increased costs, and delayed in completion, and I am not making any comments. However, this project of Northern rail connection to London that has scope of future expansion kindled my interest. Mesmerized by the efficiency of some of the rail services in the east, it just gave me the idea if we can make them to run advanced rail services here in UK, and transfer all of the business risks to them. Of course, such a venture can go ahead only after the feasibility studies and project appraisals. On this transport service, the British government is not entering into any contract for future payments, like PFI of hospitals, and some other services. The entrepreneur has to find a demand, and supply for the consumers. It is up to them to appraise the project’s viability, and indeed satisfy the UK government. Of course, there will be legal, financial, environmental, and other controls imposed by the government on the foreign investment on infrastructure projects like that.

The projects in the "east" that you have been mesmerised by - were they delivered entirely by private business, with those businesses making all of the investment and taking all of the risk? Are there any examples anywhere of a large scale rail project, with interfaces with an existing network, being built in this way?

 

[teuchter]

I was talking of ordinary trains running on ordinary tracks, and the fast trains whiz past slow trains, may be at about 80 mph without any hindrance or delay. There was nothing special about it, just efficient normal trains.

You are talking about a conventional 4 track arrangement with a pair of fast lines and a pair of slow lines and predominantly flat junctions. Most of the busiest sections of our mainlines are already set up like this, and the parts that are not, remain double track because quadrupling them would be very expensive and disruptive. For example where they are in tunnels, on viaducts, or urban areas where there is no spare land alongside the existing alignment.

 

[AnandLeo]

The absence of Chinese and Japanese rail companies operating in UK rail services is an indicator that, the rail operating companies in these two countries may not be interested in a venture of finance, build and operate of rail project like HS2. However, Japanese trains are part of the modern train network in UK.

 

[Crispy]

Worth noting that China can build railways so cheaply and quickly because of the total power of the state. No pesky environmental protection, property rights, labour laws etc. It's just like Victorian England in that regard. Railways! Everywhere! Why not!

We too could have loads of new high speed lines, if we were willing to bulldoze ancient woodland, fuck the bats, evict landowners with impunity and pay a pittance for the labour.

 

[SpookyFrank]

No, they had sections with higher speed lines and passing loops. There were still bottlenecks.

I don't think you quite understand just what's required for high speed rail.

A hundred billion quid apparently. No, a hundred and ten. Oops, no, estimate has been revised again. Two hundred billion. Which adjusted for inflation over the four hundred years it'll take is one point six trillion.

 

[Supine]

It sounds expensive but the money will be brought back into government via increased train fair income over 30-40 years. I presume!

 

[Teaboy]

Worth noting that China can build railways and cheaply so quickly because of the total power of the state. No pesky environmental protection, property rights, labour laws etc. It's just like Victorian England in that regard. Railways! Everywhere! Why not!

We too could have loads of new high speed lines, if we were willing to bulldoze ancient woodland, fuck the bats, evict landowners with impunity and pay a pittance for the labour.

And not give a flying fuck if construction workers don't make it home to their families at the end of the day and that's without long term health implications.

 

[kebabking]

It sounds expensive - because £100bn is expensive - but if it's going to take 10 years then that's £10bn a year, and if it lasts for 30 years without a rebuild that's 3bn a year. £3bn a year is, in UK economy terms, biscuit money.

The crunch HS2's success isn't going to be how quickly you can get from New Street to Central London, it's how integrated and accessable the rest of the PT network is to HS2 - it's going to be how quickly, and at what price you can get from Kidderminster to Leeds: if you still can't park at Kiddy, and it's going to cost you £200, then it's only going to see a tiny number of users..

 

[Teaboy]

Yes the Kidderminster angle. That's been whats missing from these discussions.

In 1998 I went to a Kidderminster Harriers game. It was a midweek FA Cup tie against Plymouth and it got called off at half time because of fog. Up until this moment it is the last time Kidderminster has crossed my mind.