HS2, is it right for the UK?

princeofpounds

If it's exactly the same time, it's probably a codeshare and just one plane in reality.

But aircraft do tend to arrive in 'batches'. There's a couple of reasons for this.

Sometimes it's operational - airports close at varying times and sometimes there is a narrow window where it makes sense to do a particular flight. For example, an overnight flight from the west coast of the USA might have to depart before the US airport closes, but arrive after the UK one opens.

(just an example, it might be the other way around or totally invalid, can't be bothered to do the timezone and flight time analysis!)

Sometimes it is commercial. People prefer to travel particular routes at particular times and so both airlines want to operate in a particular slot.

I think there is also an air traffic control aspect to it as well, but I can't remember the details of how that works.

grizzly1911

princeofpounds wrote: »

If it's exactly the same time, it's probably a codeshare and just one plane in reality.

But aircraft do tend to arrive in 'batches'. There's a couple of reasons for this.

Sometimes it's operational - airports close at varying times and sometimes there is a narrow window where it makes sense to do a particular flight. For example, an overnight flight from the west coast of the USA might have to depart before the US airport closes, but arrive after the UK one opens.

(just an example, it might be the other way around or totally invalid, can't be bothered to do the timezone and flight time analysis!)

Sometimes it is commercial. People prefer to travel particular routes at particular times and so both airlines want to operate in a particular slot.

I think there is also an air traffic control aspect to it as well, but I can't remember the details of how that works.

Hadn't thought about them sharing planes, they have separate codes.

I appreciate you comment on time zones etc.

Traffic control would make sense to have them having time slots to travel one way then reverse for another period on individual routes.

Herzlos

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

I'm all for improving infrastructure, but I'm sure there are better places to improve first. For instance there's a fairly busy section in Central Scotland that's under a mile of single track, which means huge bottlenecks for passenger and haulage and regular delays. Spending a tiny amount (comparatively) to make it double tracked would allow vastly improved flow of traffic and avoid the huge chain of delays caused by late running trains. It'd increase capacity and reduce the journey time of Glasgow<->Edinburgh and Edinburgh<->Manchester trips.

I'd also be all for any improvements that reduce journey time from Edinburgh<->London, since it'd improve all the intermediate journeys as well.

However, I think the cost of rail travel generally makes such things pipe dreams; even if I could get a train to london in, say, 4 hours, I probably couldn't afford to just pop down for the day anyway.

GingerSte

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The budget has been set at £42bn for now. A project of this size and magnitude over so long is bound to grow in cost.

If the scope is subsequently constrained or down graded then benefilit realisation will not be achieved so quite rightly the viability is being questioned.

It depends on what savings are made. Some savings can be made without reducing benefits, and some will reduce the benefits.

Just a note on the inevitability of these cost increases. Yes, the WCML upgrade went up considerably. I've already covered that, and that is part of the reason why I think that HS2 is a better scheme than further upgrades (ie its less risky to build new than to refurbish old). However, I've just had a look at some recently opened rail lines, to provide a bit of context.

- Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link (£300 million, completed in 2010) delivered on budget
- HS1 (£5.8 billion, completed in 2007) delivered on budget
- Borders (Waverley) Railway (£295 million, not yet complete) costs have risen to £348 million.

I include the last one as costs have risen, but only by 18%, and not the 3 or 4 times that some people have quoted. (Please note that the above figures are from 10 minutes on the internet, and I don't know how accurate they are.)

grizzly1911 wrote: »

How many of the benefits are actually measurable and achievable and how many are possible spin offs sucked in desperation to make the figures work? How will a successful return ever be established?

Not my area of expertise. Have a read of the report. Let us know.

DominicJ_2

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Small projects that take weeks are very different to huge projects that take decades.
"- Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link (£300 million, completed in 2010) delivered on budget"
Lets have 100 of those then.

Phase 3 of the metrolink was costed at £480mn in 2000, £800mn by 2002, eventually Phase 3 was split, with 3a costing that 800mn and 3b an additional 1.5bn
More than 5x the initial estimates.

TruckerT

DominicJ wrote: »

Small projects that take weeks are very different to huge projects that take decades.
"- Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link (£300 million, completed in 2010) delivered on budget"
Lets have 100 of those then.

Phase 3 of the metrolink was costed at £480mn in 2000, £800mn by 2002, eventually Phase 3 was split, with 3a costing that 800mn and 3b an additional 1.5bn
More than 5x the initial estimates.

To all intents and purposes, the £40-50billion cost estimate of HS2 is a guess. But it is clear that the current UK transport networks are overloaded.

We either have to reduce the need for business people to travel, or we have to provide the means for them to travel irrespective of the cost.

I have no clue about the history of phase 3 of the metrolink, but if its final cost was more than 5x its original estimate, then where did the extra funding come from? Why was the project not cancelled? Who has 'paid the price'?

The fact is that, even if the cost of HS2 spirals by a factor of 5 to a total of £200-250billion, the money will be found.

Railways were superseded by motorways in the mid-20th century. Motor vehicles are infinitely more convenient and flexible than trains. So are aeroplanes.

A high speed rail link will do little to help daily commuters, and in a country the size of England (Scotland and Wales do not seem to be included), I'm not convinced that it will make a huge difference.

TruckerT

GingerSte

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

DominicJ wrote: »

Small projects that take weeks are very different to huge projects that take decades.
"- Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link (£300 million, completed in 2010) delivered on budget"
Lets have 100 of those then.

Phase 3 of the metrolink was costed at £480mn in 2000, £800mn by 2002, eventually Phase 3 was split, with 3a costing that 800mn and 3b an additional 1.5bn
More than 5x the initial estimates.

I would gladly have 100 x £300 million projects. They're not exactly small projects, though!

I assume that this is the Manchester Metrolink. The 5x initial estimates threw me a little, so I did a little digging.

Can you explain where you got £800 million for 3a? I get the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink#cite_note-metuk-63

Wikipedia wrote:

The Oldham and Rochdale and South Manchester lines were funded by a £244,000,000 lump sum from the government.[62][69]

And for 3b...

Wikipedia wrote:

In May 2009, Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (formerly GMPTA) and AGMA agreed to create the Greater Manchester Transport Fund, £1.5billion raised from a combination of a levy on council tax in Greater Manchester, government grants, contributions from the Manchester Airports Group, Metrolink fares and third-party funding for "major transport schemes" in the region.[114][108]

The £1.5B is for all major transport schemes in the region. This included bus and railways as well as Metrolink. The cost of 3b was £523 million, according to http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/manchester-metrolink-phase-3b-confirmed.html

Railway_Gazette_International wrote:

Phase 3b includes three extension projects. A 14·5 km route to Manchester Airport is budgeted at £398m and will open in mid-2016. Manchester Airports Group is making a resource contribution with a nominal value of £50m. A 2·4 km route through Oldham town centre is expected to cost £89m, while the 1·1 km extension from Rochdale station to the town centre is budgeted at £35·5m. Both are due to open in spring 2014.

By my reckoning, Total of 3a+3b = £244M+£523M = £767M, which may be the £800 million you mentioned earlier (although I may be reading it wrong - I'm not particularly familiar with Metrolink and the article is a bit convoluted.)

That still represents a large increase from the 2000 cost, but that includes 13 years of inflation. According to the Wikipedia article, that is £696,900,000 in today's money (note that phase 3b is due to open next year so this is valid for at least that).

Using the same method for accounting for inflation, £244M in 2006 prices is £289M in 2013 prices. Adding £523M (already in 2013 prices) gives £812 Million for phases 3a and 3b combined. Comparing against £697 Million (in today's prices) gives a cost increase of 16%, once inflation is taken out of the picture.

Please feel free to argue with any of the points raised above. As I said, I'm not familiar with Metrolink and may have got confused on the phases.

TruckerT

GingerSte wrote: »

I would gladly have 100 x £300 million projects. They're not exactly small projects, though!

I assume that this is the Manchester Metrolink. The 5x initial estimates threw me a little, so I did a little digging.

Can you explain where you got £800 million for 3a? I get the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink#cite_note-metuk-63


And for 3b...

The £1.5B is for all major transport schemes in the region. This included bus and railways as well as Metrolink. The cost of 3b was £523 million, according to http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/manchester-metrolink-phase-3b-confirmed.html



By my reckoning, Total of 3a+3b = £244M+£523M = £767M, which may be the £800 million you mentioned earlier (although I may be reading it wrong - I'm not particularly familiar with Metrolink and the article is a bit convoluted.)

That still represents a large increase from the 2000 cost, but that includes 13 years of inflation. According to the Wikipedia article, that is £696,900,000 in today's money (note that phase 3b is due to open next year so this is valid for at least that).

Using the same method for accounting for inflation, £244M in 2006 prices is £289M in 2013 prices. Adding £523M (already in 2013 prices) gives £812 Million for phases 3a and 3b combined. Comparing against £697 Million (in today's prices) gives a cost increase of 16%, once inflation is taken out of the picture.

Please feel free to argue with any of the points raised above. As I said, I'm not familiar with Metrolink and may have got confused on the phases.

With the greatest respect, I enjoyed your post in the same way that I enjoyed watching the juggler when I took my grandchildren to the circus yesterday. The guy kept producing more and more balls out of nowhere, and seemed to be able to keep them all in the air at the same time, so that it was impossible for the audience to keep track of any of them.

I think accountancy skills have a lot in common with circus skills.

TruckerT

GingerSte

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

TruckerT wrote: »

With the greatest respect, I enjoyed your post in the same way that I enjoyed watching the juggler when I took my grandchildren to the circus yesterday. The guy kept producing more and more balls out of nowhere, and seemed to be able to keep them all in the air at the same time, so that it was impossible for the audience to keep track of any of them.

I think accountancy skills have a lot in common with circus skills.

TruckerT

The post did kind of run away from me!

It may take a second read, but if you follow it through and disagree with any of the figures, let me know. My point was that the "5x increase" wasn't so, as phase 3b was only a small part of that money.

kabayiri

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

I believe that if you are seen as anti-HS2 then you are somehow anti investment.

Personally, I don't take that stance. I think we can spend that money but on a collection of projects which can start to deliver results now.

It seems that the announcment for HS2 was made, come what may, and now they are retro filling the justifications in.

Shouldn't we look at future work patterns first?