|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 14:47:40 GMT
Post by racingteatray on Jan 21, 2020 14:47:40 GMT
I don't have an especially strong view one way or the other on HS2 but does anyone have an explanation why it is apparently costing such a staggering sum of money? Are there particularly difficult engineering issues involved or is it just public procurement bloat?
The cost per mile seems to be multiples of what similar high-speed rail schemes in other countries have cost. For example, the French and Italians are building a high-speed rail link between Turin and Lyon, which involves drilling a nearly 60km tunnel under the Alps and it is costing about a quarter of what HS2 is predicted to cost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 14:58:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 14:58:15 GMT
I am no expert but it would seem there are a staggering number of pigs at the trough. Considering the low return we should be spending the money on the standard network and doing more good for more people. Prices might even be stable across the board.
|
|
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 15:05:11 GMT
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 21, 2020 15:05:11 GMT
I don't have an especially strong view one way or the other on HS2 but does anyone have an explanation why it is apparently costing such a staggering sum of money? Are there particularly difficult engineering issues involved or is it just public procurement bloat?
The cost per mile seems to be multiples of what similar high-speed rail schemes in other countries have cost. For example, the French and Italians are building a high-speed rail link between Turin and Lyon, which involves drilling a nearly 60km tunnel under the Alps and it is costing about a quarter of what HS2 is predicted to cost. It won't though. The real cost will be much higher. It's also been hit with real problems, almost ground to a standstill, and may not even be completed. As I understand there are a lot of significant engineering challenges relating to ground conditions particularly as you get north of Birmingham. The spread of £86B - £106B is within the percentage norm for these sort of projects. One of the authors of the report into costs was of the opinion that as it amounts to about 0.3% of GDP and there were no other "spade ready" major infrastructure projects in the pipeline we should proceed. If major infrastructure improvements to the Northern rail links were at the same stage I'd be inclined to go with them, but they aren't and it could be many years before they are ready to go. There's no guarantee that the money allocated to HS2 would be simply transferred to Northern projects anyway. By the time it's completed we'll all be teleporting everywhere anyway.
|
|
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 15:28:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by franki68 on Jan 21, 2020 15:28:38 GMT
I don't have an especially strong view one way or the other on HS2 but does anyone have an explanation why it is apparently costing such a staggering sum of money? Are there particularly difficult engineering issues involved or is it just public procurement bloat?
The cost per mile seems to be multiples of what similar high-speed rail schemes in other countries have cost. For example, the French and Italians are building a high-speed rail link between Turin and Lyon, which involves drilling a nearly 60km tunnel under the Alps and it is costing about a quarter of what HS2 is predicted to cost. Because it’s the government paying ,it’s like a plumber turning up at a mansion ,that £100 new pipe work suddenly becomes £1500. My next door neighbour was involved in the bidding war for the infamous Nhs computer system a few years back ,(the one that ended up costing £12bn and didn’t work ) ,his companies original bid was £1bn cheaper than the winning bid ,but it’s all contracts given to the old school tie brigade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 15:36:07 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 15:36:07 GMT
|
|
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 16:08:17 GMT
Post by Big Blue on Jan 21, 2020 16:08:17 GMT
I have such strong views on this subject that I have refused work there several times.
A total waste of money. Take half of it and spend it on the existing network: a few billion would enable a few routes to have the bridges and gantries altered to allow double decker trains for a start off.
Take the other half and build a couple of new cities to negate the need for a fucking high speed rail ljnk to London (for that's what it is - a link to London to allow those in the SE to return home from a meeting they had to endure in a regional office nothing else; I know because that's what I used the West Coast Main Line for when the last job had a base in Birmingham) so non-Londoners can have a life that doesn't force them to come to live and/or work in London
|
|
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 16:36:48 GMT
Post by Tim on Jan 21, 2020 16:36:48 GMT
I don't have an especially strong view one way or the other on HS2 but does anyone have an explanation why it is apparently costing such a staggering sum of money? Are there particularly difficult engineering issues involved or is it just public procurement bloat?
The cost per mile seems to be multiples of what similar high-speed rail schemes in other countries have cost. For example, the French and Italians are building a high-speed rail link between Turin and Lyon, which involves drilling a nearly 60km tunnel under the Alps and it is costing about a quarter of what HS2 is predicted to cost. It won't though. The real cost will be much higher. It's also been hit with real problems, almost ground to a standstill, and may not even be completed. As I understand there are a lot of significant engineering challenges relating to ground conditions particularly as you get north of Birmingham. The spread of £86B - £106B is within the percentage norm for these sort of projects. One of the authors of the report into costs was of the opinion that as it amounts to about 0.3% of GDP and there were no other "spade ready" major infrastructure projects in the pipeline we should proceed. If major infrastructure improvements to the Northern rail links were at the same stage I'd be inclined to go with them, but they aren't and it could be many years before they are ready to go. There's no guarantee that the money allocated to HS2 would be simply transferred to Northern projects anyway. By the time it's completed we'll all be teleporting everywhere anyway. The bit I've highlighted is probably the most relevent part of any discussion to cancel HS2. TBH, as someone from the far North, I think that if HS2 got cancelled then the money apportioned to it would simply disappear out of the budget entirely. There might be a few upgrade projects for the north in the £000s of millions but nothing even remotely significant against a planned spend of £100bn. I'm hopefully not being abitter northerner here but it's going to take forever for the sole focus to shift from the SE, if it ever happens at all.
|
|
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 17:07:17 GMT
Post by michael on Jan 21, 2020 17:07:17 GMT
Isn't infrastructure spending a devolved issue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 17:20:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 17:20:29 GMT
So we are told by various people.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 21, 2020 17:32:42 GMT
One of the reasons for the additional costs is self inflicted: IR35 in the public sector means anyone on a publicly funded contract has to be paid under deduction of tax, employees and employer's NI even when they work through their own company. Those I am aware of who are working on HS2 were getting paid between £80K and £100K through their own companies. IR35 in the public sector sticks its oar in and these individuals are facing a 30 - 40% reduction in take home pay so refuse to carry on. After a bit of negotiation they are now on the payroll, getting paid between £130K and 150K giving them roughly the same net take home as they had before.
Someone is paying the extra £50K a year!
EDIT: I also think that HS2 is a complete waste of time and that the money should have been spent on existing lines and new lines for places like Leeds to Manchester, to give us a more reliable and faster service on current routes with the type of improvement that BB suggests. Improvements would mean slightly faster and more reliable services for all, rather than a single line for a high speed blue elephant.
|
|
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 17:34:10 GMT
Post by Big Blue on Jan 21, 2020 17:34:10 GMT
Isn't infrastructure spending a devolved issue? In the same way that taxation is.... ...oh, hang on. You can't have devolved spending on major infrastructure until there is some devolved fundraising. DfT rules all this spending, be it through the Rail groups (NR, Passenger Services etc.) or Road groups (DVLA, Highways Agency). Airports can raise funds on some things (access fees) but Air Passenger Duty is still centrally controlled and Heathrow development is funded by a section affiliated to the DfT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HS2
Jan 21, 2020 18:41:32 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 18:41:32 GMT
These major infrastructure should be of benefit to the majority rather than a minority as is the case with hs2. A load of tosh and they are still arguing which means it will have more increases in cost. Seriously though, why does government screw up everything it touches and then look/act surprised?
|
|
|
HS2
Jan 22, 2020 10:24:28 GMT
Post by Big Blue on Jan 22, 2020 10:24:28 GMT
These major infrastructure should be of benefit to the majority rather than a minority as is the case with hs2. A load of tosh and they are still arguing which means it will have more increases in cost. Seriously though, why does government screw up everything it touches and then look/act surprised?A little bit unfair because major infrastructure projects tend to be the kind of projects that don't benefit the client organisation financially, so there are no private deliverers that would fund them (see the errors of PPP for reference) effectively and the reason is that they're impossible to predict and make a business case for. Take the redevelopment of London Bridge Station, for instance. Only a few tens of thousands people use it regularly and it cost about £1Bn to redevelop. Who was going to pay for that if not the tax payer? You can't not have a huge terminus station in the City of London and the way it evolved under private development over 150 years meant that there were all kinds of concourse level differences, design differences and rail switch differences that meant it was not efficient to move passengers between the train, the tube and work (the latter being the main aim of railways). No rail company was going to redevelop it with a 7 year franchise; no private developer was going to wholly redevelop it (The Shard paid some) and no single corporate company was going to pay for it so the taxpayer pays. The outset estimate was nothing like the final account and whilst that looks like rampant inefficiency its due to a combination of things like having to maintain a live service, finding out that what the old drawings said existed wasn't quite like that and then what a group of stakeholders (TfL, Southwark, River authority, neighbours etc.) want done. That said HS2 is still a crock of shit and utter folly.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Feb 11, 2020 16:48:12 GMT
Go ahead given then.
Just to confirm, is the £106Bn for the whole thing or just the bit to Brum?
What are the chances of part 2 happening and what do we reckon the cost for part 1 will actually end up at?
|
|
|
HS2
Feb 11, 2020 20:27:32 GMT
Post by PG on Feb 11, 2020 20:27:32 GMT
Sounds like the whole Y thing has been approved. But that the part north of Birmingham is subject to a review of costings and routes. I reckon they'll integrate it more to the other rail network north of Birmingham, but I'm not sure how that will save money. Lower speeds?
I reckon over £200 Bn - after all all government projects have at least 2 x error in the costings.
|
|
|
HS2
Feb 12, 2020 11:48:45 GMT
Post by racingteatray on Feb 12, 2020 11:48:45 GMT
|
|