HS2

[Leothebear]

Let's assume HS2 is completed. Who uses it?
I don't doubt it'll be a costly 1st class service for those who think saving 40 minutes matter. Will it really relieve the pressure on the other routes whether road or rail?

Sorry I just think this is a project which will make many very wealthy and have a minimum benefit to our economy.

The money would be far better spent on desperately needed modernisation and action on the many deficiencies in our present network.

[gryffron]

In terms of building lines for both passenger high speed and freight capacity, Brunel got it right by building straight and flat. Rather than widen the gauge, he would have bequeathed a better legacy had he insisted that his railway should have capacity for coaches and wagons somewhat wider and higher than those then in use.

Yes, he was great at imaginative new ideas. Less great at testing whether they actually worked before he implemented them.

He got it badly wrong by using baulk rail with longitudinal sleepers. This carries less weight than conventional transverse sleepers, is less stable, and the iron cross ties tended to break causing derailments. Of course, not entirely fair to equate broad gauge with baulk rail. Either gauge could be built with either track system. But it was mainly the increased cost of building larger gauge track which led Brunel to this measure.

In fact the biggest theoretical advantage of broad gauge is not for high speed rail but for heavy freight. It can spread the weight more so support heavier axle loads. A number of broad gauge schemes have been proposed in the USA to increase freight capacity, though unsurprisingly none have yet been built as they would require massive investment. Baulk rail of course discards this potential advantage

Let's assume HS2 is completed. Who uses it?
I don't doubt it'll be a costly 1st class service for those who think saving 40 minutes matter. Will it really relieve the pressure on the other routes whether road or rail?

It will use airline-style variable pricing to fill every seat. Just like now. So yes, peak time prices will be high. Off peak, no more than now.
As HYD's Independent link explains, we can expect to see far fewer fast express services on the legacy lines as they cram in more semi-fast and local services.

Gryff

[marronier]

Brunel's original plan was to link Fishguard to Dover via London but lack of vision in others killed the idea. The Brunel Road to Southall then the line south across the M4 to link with the line at Brentford ,through Clapham to Waterloo ,raised to link through Waterloo East then London Bridge and on eastwards , has been available and would see the money better spent.

[tjh290633]

Brunel was right.

In terms of building lines for both passenger high speed and freight capacity, Brunel got it right by building straight and flat. Rather than widen the gauge, he would have bequeathed a better legacy had he insisted that his railway should have capacity for coaches and wagons somewhat wider and higher than those then in use.

The irony is that George Hudson built the Great Central to continental clearances, with a view to connecting with a Channel Tunnel for through services. Dr Breeching led to its closure, but some of that route is followed by HS2, north of Aylesbury.

Who had more vision?

TJH

[Alaric]

Dr Breeching led to its closure, but some of that route is followed by HS2, north of Aylesbury.

In so far as you can have a main railway line in south and central England that doesn't serve any sizeable or important intermediate towns or cities, the Great Central was it. Ironically that makes it a good choice for a non-stop route between London and Birmingham.

The main driving force had been a man called Watkin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Watkin

[tjh290633]

Dr Breeching led to its closure, but some of that route is followed by HS2, north of Aylesbury.

In so far as you can have a main railway line in south and central England that doesn't serve any sizeable or important intermediate towns or cities, the Great Central was it. Ironically that makes it a good choice for a non-stop route between London and Birmingham.

The main driving force had been a man called Watkin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Watkin

Correct, I was forgetting my railway history.

TJH

[Lootman]

Dr Breeching led to its closure, but some of that route is followed by HS2, north of Aylesbury.

In so far as you can have a main railway line in south and central England that doesn't serve any sizeable or important intermediate towns or cities, the Great Central was it. Ironically that makes it a good choice for a non-stop route between London and Birmingham.

I suppose that depends on whether you define Nottingham and Leicester as "sizeable or important intermediate towns or cities". They are certainly cities.

Wasn't the GCR designed to be that way, in order to facilitate faster journey times? In which case it would be a fit for a high speed route. Except that the closest it got to Birmingham is Lutterworth, I believe. Rugby might make more sense given it has a lot of rail infrastructure. Both are about 30 miles from Birmingham.

[tjh290633]

The GCR was an extension of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway. That included the Woodhead Tunnel and was electrified on 1500V DC, mainly to power the heavy coal trains between Wath-on-Dearne and Manchester, but also providing fast trains between Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield Victoria. Also a victim of Beeching.

So it connected Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Aylesbury and London. It had a useful junction at Woodford Halse, where it made connections with the GWR for the Southwest. A further precursor of Cross Country Services, also closed by the Beeching proposals, with part of the line from Cheltenham to Honeybourne and onward to Woodford Halse now operated by the Gloucester and Warwickshire Railway as a heritage line.

The loss of diversionary routes and cross country connections was a major mistake.

TJH

[Clitheroekid]

One of the most irritating aspects of all publicly funded projects is that they invariably go massively over budget.

The original budget was £30bn. It's been increased constantly, and now stands at a possible £85bn.

This is unbelievably incompetent on the part of the people who came up with the original figure.

Or is it incompetence? I can't help thinking that there's a huge incentive to deliberately underestimate the cost, as many of the `consultants' that gave advice knew that this was (no pun intended) the gravy train to beat all gravy trains, and that like most public projects once it was underway they could just keep jacking up the cost and plundering the public purse.

The worst aspect of it is that nobody apart from us taxpayers ever seems to suffer any sanctions for having - perhaps deliberately - cocked up the original budget.

[scotia]

One of the most irritating aspects of all publicly funded projects is that they invariably go massively over budget.

Complex projects are notoriously difficult to cost in advance, however I agree that there is possibly a tendency to underestimate in order to get the go ahead. But sometimes it works the other way. Back in my youth, Ferranti provided a quote for a major component of the Bloodhound missile system - and they delivered it on-budget. But in fact, they had over-estimated the difficulty, and they made a stonking profit - but this was discovered by the government, and they had to pay back over 4 million pounds ( a lot of money in the early sixties).

[terminal7]

So we have had costs escalating from the original under £20b (London/Birmingham) and £30b (to include further north to Manchester) towards northwards of £85b. At just under £20b for the Birmingham section the project was economically marginal (polite way of saying highly dubious) with the then forecasts of economic benefits to the UK economy. Therefore, the economic benefits need to have been re-assessed at some treble the original forecasts to provide comfort that the project is anywhere near economically viable. Can anyone point me to reports that show this?

T7

Disclosure: I was involved in the original estimates of economic benefits some 9 years ago

[UncleEbenezer]

One of the most irritating aspects of all publicly funded projects is that they invariably go massively over budget.

Isn't that kind-of what PFI was supposed to stop? As in, the contractor works to fixed cost and so takes on the risk of cost overruns and the incentive to be realistic at the outset?

At least, so long as the contractor survives (c.f. Carillion).

[tjh290633]

One of the most irritating aspects of all publicly funded projects is that they invariably go massively over budget.

Isn't that kind-of what PFI was supposed to stop? As in, the contractor works to fixed cost and so takes on the risk of cost overruns and the incentive to be realistic at the outset?

At least, so long as the contractor survives (c.f. Carillion).

The problem with HS2 is that it is not a contractor, but subcontracts all the work. With such a long timescale they are years away from letting, or even getting quotes, for many of the contracts, hence they only have their preliminary estimates to work on.

No doubt when they do let contracts they will do so on fixed price contracts, with incentives and penalties for achieving target dates, but also scope for the inevitable variations to contract. They should have built considerable contingencies into their estimates, but nobody knows how much they have allowed for.

TJH

[Leothebear]

I remember the company for whom I used to work buying into a do-all, must-have wonder insurance system. As usual there was little consultation with its own techies on the merits and feasibility of the system. The manager responsible had decided that's what was needed.

The project went on and on way past the target date and budget. Once it was installed the testing showed it to be a real dud. Still the thing was modified and retuned - the reason being that so much cash had been invested in it, it had to work. Eventually they realised they were polishing a turd and the project was abandoned. The manager responsible suffered no ill consequences.

I'm worried that HS2 will go ahead, no matter how far over budget, for the same reasoning.