HS2

[corneliuslundie]

I don't want to distract, but my daughter's case was 30 years ago. And when our daughter in law was doing supply teaching some years ago she had to have one for each local authority. I currently have two, one for the church and one for the local authority (as we have been having Ukrainians living with us) as the local authority won't accept the church one - though fortunately the schools in the area will accept the LA one. And I am certainly paying an annual renewal fee as the e-mail has arrived in the last few days.

Jonathan

[John Tomlinson]

3 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Goodness me...........

 

I'm well aware that there are huge political issues/discussions et-all - but I am simply NOT INTERESTED in the political/discussions/planning (as in permissions, not actually planning the practical work)..

 

What I am interested in is how it's being done on a practical level - clearly to simple for many of the pendants on here.

 

Being one of said pedants, it should be "clearly too simple", double "o" on the too, in the context you are using,

 

Lol,  John.

[Northmoor]

If anyone wants to know why HS2 is so expensive, there are probably two main causes:

1. There is a disproportionate amount of tunnelling, for a railway that could have been built with far, far less.
2. Land and property in Britain is expensive, with HS2 being built through one of the most expensive areas of all.

The costs associated with land and property have a snowball effect in conjunction with the (not completely unreasonable) environmental mitigation that is required.  Building those local road diversions requires land to be acquired for those as well, then any haul road is built across fields you can bet the farmer didn't ask for a tenner a month.  No farmland in Britain is cheap anymore and certainly not along HS2's line of route.

 

In Britain, people want compensation for having to look at something untidy for a while, even though it may be improved afterwards.  Because the one thing that is now absolutely unacceptable to British property owners, is anything that might reduce the untaxed capital gain made from simply owning property, irrespective of whether they've done anything to add value to it.

Edited June 10 by Northmoor

[MidlandRed]

Surely the 65 hectare site taking up seemingly a good portion of Washwood Heath, on which will be built a huge train maintenance depot and route control centre, along with the new terminal station at Birmingham will absorb significant costs. 
 

I think one of the largest financial issues affecting the project will be inflation - there has been huge inflation in construction material costs since Covid, and the generally high inflation rate alone will add billions. 
 

Accommodation works like road realignment etc etc are relatively low cost in comparison to other civil engineering works such as the approach works into Birmingham Curzon Street, and as already stated, the amount of tunnelling required (much of it for engineering reasons). I’m afraid this is the challenge with providing major new infrastructure through built up areas - you can’t just demolish huge slices through cities and towns these days (or environmentally sensitive areas either). Thankfully we are no longer living in 1860 when this would have been acceptable (provided it didn’t affect the landed gentry). 

[GrumpyPenguin]

19 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The simple solution is to ignore the posts that you are not interested in.

Indeed, but on that principle there would be no need for different threads at all.

[GrumpyPenguin]

19 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

No one cares ... this is the 'HS2' thread and different people want to discuss different things ... but its not your choice what is or isn't discussed

Originally it was really more of an observation on my part - not your choice either.

[GrumpyPenguin]

16 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

Being one of said pedants, it should be "clearly too simple", double "o" on the too, in the context you are using,

 

Lol,  John.

Originally I spelt it "too" - then decided to spell it "to", just to see how many would bite.............

[GordonC]

27 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Originally it was really more of an observation on my part - not your choice either.

 

I never claimed it was my choice ... I use the little thing on the side called a scroll bar if its something I'm not interested in

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Surely the 65 hectare site taking up seemingly a good portion of Washwood Heath, on which will be built a huge train maintenance depot and route control centre, along with the new terminal station at Birmingham will absorb significant costs. 
 

I think one of the largest financial issues affecting the project will be inflation - there has been huge inflation in construction material costs since Covid, and the generally high inflation rate alone will add billions. 
 

Accommodation works like road realignment etc etc are relatively low cost in comparison to other civil engineering works such as the approach works into Birmingham Curzon Street, and as already stated, the amount of tunnelling required (much of it for engineering reasons). I’m afraid this is the challenge with providing major new infrastructure through built up areas - you can’t just demolish huge slices through cities and towns these days (or environmentally sensitive areas either). Thankfully we are no longer living in 1860 when this would have been acceptable (provided it didn’t affect the landed gentry). 

Any properly managed project will have the inflation factor duly adjusted, especially in any public explanation of costs.  One of the big problems with HS2 costs is that the increases have not been explained and all we get is a new number.  Unless the thing is being grossly mismanaged there should be a very fat file/electronic equivalent tracing and  explaining the reasons for ever penny of cost 'increase'.  But I could quite understand that making that information public might not be politically acceptable (note the lower case 'p' in politically).

[John Tomlinson]

1 hour ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Originally I spelt it "too" - then decided to spell it "to", just to see how many would bite.............

 

I'm reminded of the line in Dad's Army, when Captain Mannering says something similar, "I wondered when someone would notice that".😀😀

 

John.

[Northmoor]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Any properly managed project will have the inflation factor duly adjusted, especially in any public explanation of costs.  One of the big problems with HS2 costs is that the increases have not been explained and all we get is a new number.  Unless the thing is being grossly mismanaged there should be a very fat file/electronic equivalent tracing and  explaining the reasons for ever penny of cost 'increase'.  But I could quite understand that making that information public might not be politically acceptable (note the lower case 'p' in politically).

I totally agree Mike and this is why I think we make the mistake in the UK of allowing the big contractors to drive the programme - "We'd like to sew up a twenty year order book, please".  Government should ask for a very challenging, possibly ridiculous delivery schedule of say six years (plus also eight and ten years) but with a clear statement that no other major (similar) construction projects would be funded for that period, to reduce competition for the relevant resources and skills.  I'll bet you'll get some serious innovation in delivery but more importantly, you remove at least ten years worth of inflation (which in construction amounts to probably about 150% in the last decade).

 

Edited June 11 by Northmoor

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

I totally agree Mike and this is why I think we make the mistake in the UK of allowing the big contractors to drive the programme - "We'd like to sew up a twenty year order book, please".  Government should ask for a very challenging, possibly ridiculous delivery schedule of say six years (plus also eight and ten years) but with a clear statement that all other major (similar) construction projects would be funded for that period, to reduce competition for the relevant resources and skills.  I'll bet you'll get some serious innovation in delivery but more importantly, you remove at least ten years worth of inflation (which in construction amounts to probably about 150% in the last decade).

 

The problem here, and with Mike’s response, are that they ignore the fact this is Government funded capital finance - i.e borrowing - not a problem unless there is a sudden large increase in the cost of Government borrowing - as occurred around 18 months ago when the Government abandoned a normal fiscal approach and chaos ensued - the increased cost of borrowing did nothing for the ability to pay for the project. Government’s response is often to extend the programme period (so as to stretch the financing out). Combine this with all the inflationary pressures and one can see where problems can occur - yes you can say eventualities should be allowed for in risk planning - although I have to say I had never seen a global pandemic appear in a major project risk register prior to its occurrence, or the fallout from an unexpected upheaval caused by a one in a lifetime political change, upheaval and challenge (B***it). 

[melmerby]

11 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

Originally it was really more of an observation on my part - not your choice either.

In that case stop ramming the point home, being rude when someone disagrees, even resorting to capitals, which is considered to be "shouting"

 

 

Edited June 11 by melmerby

[rockershovel]

15 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

The problem here, and with Mike’s response, are that they ignore the fact this is Government funded capital finance - i.e borrowing - not a problem unless there is a sudden large increase in the cost of Government borrowing - as occurred around 18 months ago when the Government abandoned a normal fiscal approach and chaos ensued - the increased cost of borrowing did nothing for the ability to pay for the project. Government’s response is often to extend the programme period (so as to stretch the financing out). Combine this with all the inflationary pressures and one can see where problems can occur - yes you can say eventualities should be allowed for in risk planning - although I have to say I had never seen a global pandemic appear in a major project risk register prior to its occurrence, or the fallout from an unexpected upheaval caused by a one in a lifetime political change, upheaval and challenge (B***it). 

The problem with THAT is that it has already been tried. During the mid-1990s we went through a period when the Jubilee Line Extension was pretty much the "only game in town".

 

The damage to the UK construction industry was enormous. Several of the leading names of that era - Taylor Wood row, for example - are entirely gone. The skills training structure was largely destroyed by the pressure for wage erosion and quasi-self-employment which resulted.

 

A gap appeared in the construction industry's demographic which has still not been properly addressed. 

 

Overseas contractors such as BAM, Ferrovial, SKANSKA and the like cherry-pick the market at will. 

 

The British construction industry isn't capable of taking advantage of long-term security of workload without root and branch reform. 

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

The problem here, and with Mike’s response, are that they ignore the fact this is Government funded capital finance - i.e borrowing - not a problem unless there is a sudden large increase in the cost of Government borrowing - as occurred around 18 months ago when the Government abandoned a normal fiscal approach and chaos ensued - the increased cost of borrowing did nothing for the ability to pay for the project. Government’s response is often to extend the programme period (so as to stretch the financing out). Combine this with all the inflationary pressures and one can see where problems can occur - yes you can say eventualities should be allowed for in risk planning - although I have to say I had never seen a global pandemic appear in a major project risk register prior to its occurrence, or the fallout from an unexpected upheaval caused by a one in a lifetime political change, upheaval and challenge (B***it). 

But still with any project which is properly managed you can still note even the unexpected pandemic as a factor in raw number cost increase.  For example, and for all we know , inflation aside, track laying on HS2 will cost much the same as it has always been estimated to cost - if the numbers were right in the first place accurately using contemporaneous prices and costs then change can be explained - although, as i said, it might be politically unacceptable to make that public.

 

When we built our present house I knew at what point stage payments would have to be made and what they would cover and what the estimated cost of them would be.  If a variation was made from the original spec I got a revised quote for that variation from the builder thus I knew what we would have to pay at each stage.  As it happened the groundwork came out under the budgetted figure not withstanding adding additional steel reinforcement but I knew where and why the differences occurred.(no need for digging such deep foundations as originally estimated for produced the saving, steel was a new cost).

 

A small project in terms of budgetary control and expenditure planning is no different - except in extent - from a large project and properly managed and controlled every variation from budget should be accounted for and adequately explained.  If you don't do that you can finish up in an HS2 situation (as far as its public face is concerned) where costs have galloped away from the estimate for no explained reasons although the real cost might actually be very close to original estimate.

[martin_wynne]

.

Michael Lambert discusses the cost of HS2 in the first few minutes:

 

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Meanwhile....

Back to the reality of HS2 construction.

 

Land Ahoy !

 

(p.s.  I'm not sure why an aerial view of the Hanger Lane Gyratory is added at the end?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[jamie92208]

That video is interesting as it shows how they seem to be doing a different method for the arches on the landward stretch. It looks as if they are  going to lay the arch on supports then tie it together. It will be interesting to follow progress. 

Jamie

[Ron Ron Ron]

Heading north, up to Brum.

 

Construction of the Washwood Heath portal for the Bromford Tunnel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Slowly, but surely, dozens of bridges and viaducts all along Phase 1, are nearing completion......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Slowly, but surely, dozens of bridges and viaducts all along Phase 1, are nearing completion......

There will be chuffers on them soon!!! Does an ex-military gentleman from the BoT still have to inspect the track, stations, facilities, etc.?

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Does an ex-military gentleman from the BoT 

 

I think they were current commissioned officers on detachment or secondment from the Royal Engineers - certainly one can see some of them go up a rank or two during the course of their careers with the Railway Inspectorate. So not ex. I believe recruitment from the Royal Engineers ceased in the 1960s.

 

But this does raise the question, what is the ORR's process for acceptance of new lines?

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

There will be chuffers on them soon

Let's have a Coronaton pacific to see how fast they really could go.😉

[adb968008]

On 06/06/2024 at 11:02, Not Jeremy said:

Here on my own HS2, despite problems of incomplete terminal facilities, unfinished infrastructure and a total lack of investment in new trains, lateral thinking and cross border imagination has resulted in a service that is proving quite popular.

 

 

Standing room only on market days....

Will you be putting a bus on that bridge ?

[adb968008]

On 30/04/2024 at 10:47, Ron Ron Ron said:

Chipping Warden "Green" tunnel. 

The tunnel under nothing, but the edges of remains of a disused WW2 airfield, some of it used for storing cars, the rest being unused green land, woodland and some agricultural use.

 

All this effort and cost, for what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Who's the predominant  landowners ?

 

That maybe a clue.

Edited June 12 by adb968008