HS2 - Cancel it now

[PannickAtTheDisco]

There is no need to get to London faster but commuter trains are not going to go faster unless you start cancelling stops and that defeats the point.

Preston-Euston takes 2hrs 15 mins but then it should because it only stops at Wigan and Warrington, the rest of the journey it is chugging doing 100+ mph or whatever.

It usually takes me around 45 mins to get into Manchester but that isn't because the train is knackered and slow, it's because it stops at 6-7 stations on the way.

It can't do 100+ mph when it has to stop every 5 mins.

The point being that we need a better mix of express and commuter services, with lines upgraded to allow trains to run at full tilt for longer between stations and longer sretches where express trains can run unimpeded and with the ability to overtake local stopping services with ease, using modern trains that accelerate much more quickly to maximise running.

So many lines can't utilise the 125mph top speeds of our newer trains, and the slightest delay can leave a line completely out of kilter because a stopping service ends up in the way of express services on a 2 track line with nowhere to overtake and we need to invest into these facilities so that we can improve these services.

If a Leeds-Manchester express could just run at an average of 80 like some of our better lines it would only take 30-35 minutes which is a huge improvement and the sort of changes we need to invest in across the network.

 

[peoffrey]

I’m due in Swansea twice in two months and the walk on return fare is £90. Off peak. Advance tickets for convenient times are rare.

 

[Kompany Car]

What I fail to understand is how construction companies continue to massively under estimate costs on major infrastructure projects and yet they continue to get away with it.
East coast electrification, HS1, UK aircraft carriers, Crossrail, HS2 - the list goes on and on and on.
Now, I know the Government always choses the cheapest tender but the winning tenders are barely 1/3 of the final cost.
More importantly, why doesn't the government correct the tendering process?

The whole contracting process is broken.

The projects are run by construction companies rather than design companies. Anybody in their right mind would firstly pay for a detailed design to be developed and then cost engineer it, before trying to construct the thing. In the UK rail industry for example they start to build it before it’s even been designed as the likes of Volkers, Costain, Buckingham’s etc don’t make money until they start putting spades in the ground. Design is an unfortunate inconvenience to them. So you end up with people building half baked designs that don’t fulfil the original design remit or it’s not correctly integrated.

Another problem in the UK with infrastructure projects is commercial risk. Price is king when winning contracts, with a weighting normally between 50% and 75%, so most companies price aggressively and recover their profit through changes on the project. This keeps the commercial managers and often lawyers fully employed but does not offer any value to the tax payer.

Finally fragmentation of major contracts also causes issues. Crossrail had over 30 major construction and design companies working on it, with an expectation that they would work together. But there was no control or coordination in place so everybody did their little bit and when they brought them together there were loads of issues at the interfaces.

Its not hard to fix but it requires people to accept that the system is broken. Unfortunately there are too many senior people on six figure salaries sat within the higher echelons of government/public sector bodies just burying their heads in the sand who won’t admit they were wrong.

 

[BlueAnorak]

The whole contracting process is broken.

The projects are run by construction companies rather than design companies. Anybody in their right mind would firstly pay for a detailed design to be developed and then cost engineer it, before trying to construct the thing. In the UK rail industry for example they start to build it before it’s even been designed as the likes of Volkers, Costain, Buckingham’s etc don’t make money until they start putting spades in the ground. Design is an unfortunate inconvenience to them. So you end up with people building half baked designs that don’t fulfil the original design remit or it’s not correctly integrated.

Another problem in the UK with infrastructure projects is commercial risk. Price is king when winning contracts, with a weighting normally between 50% and 75%, so most companies price aggressively and recover their profit through changes on the project. This keeps the commercial managers and often lawyers fully employed but does not offer any value to the tax payer.

Finally fragmentation of major contracts also causes issues. Crossrail had over 30 major construction and design companies working on it, with an expectation that they would work together. But there was no control or coordination in place so everybody did their little bit and when they brought them together there were loads of issues at the interfaces.

Its not hard to fix but it requires people to accept that the system is broken. Unfortunately there are too many senior people on six figure salaries sat within the higher echelons of government/public sector bodies just burying their heads in the sand who won’t admit they were wrong.

Excellent post.
It pretty much equates with my opinions.
The outstanding issue is why the UK government is unwilling to do anything about it? The only reason I can think of, is it would prevent former senior civil servants and government ministers getting jobs at senior levels with the said construction companies.

 

[Bill Walker]

I'd say build it.
I've been on bullet trains in Japan and China it's a superb way to travel.
Expensive yes but investing in good public transport is the way of the future and that money will only disappear into some black hole anyway. Maybe a submarine or two.

 

[Vic]

I went Manchester to Liverpool in 1 hour 25 mins last year ....... 15 mins longer than it took Stephensons Rocket.

Why didn't you get the train that took 34 minutes? And I presume you calculated Rocket doing 35 miles at 30mph. Nice try. That wasn't the timetable in 1830.

 

[dickie davies]

I'd say build it.
I've been on bullet trains in Japan and China it's a superb way to travel.
Expensive yes but investing in good public transport is the way of the future and that money will only disappear into some black hole anyway. Maybe a submarine or two.

They are but it's 1970's technology and infrastructure being readied for 2040 Britain

 

[Vic]

For the cost if HS2 you can:-

Replace every piece of track.

Renew every piece of rolling stock.

You would then have comfortable trains that ran on time.

The last upgrade of the West Coast Main Line cost £9bn (12 years ago). That's 4% of total mileage. So for the whole system that's about 3 times HS2 and doing nothing to allow more trains to run.

 

[Vic]

most of those are on the generous end, so I think we can see the problem isn't how to get to London quickly, more how to get anywhere bleeding else at anywhere approaching car speeds...

Some very odd results in that, both mileage and times. 215 miles London to Paris? As the crow flies maybe. 50 mins Liverpool to Manchester? Only 50% more than the current fastest trains.

 

[Vic]

Will be just another commuting route to London. Mega billions to transport 15,000 people per hour (1,100 per train, 14 trains per hour).
All in a minimum 10+ years time when the need to travel will likely be reduced anyway.

Building HS3 first, the Trans Pennines route, would have made more sense. Bringing that route up to 21st century standards now would provide more value to the North.
Getting from Piccadilly to Euston in an hour is useless if it still takes an hour or more at each end.

Still an hour quicker so not useless. HS3 (or Northern Powerhouse Rail as it now is) would be expensive. Our council leader moaned about how long it took by train from Manchester to Newcastle. The only reason he ever needed to go to Newcastle was to talk about how long it took to get there.