"It may be that HS2’s price tag could be the sum of hundreds of bat tunnel-esque decisions, yet as it stands we haven’t uncovered enough to total a tenth of HS2’s eye-watering costs."
Tours-Bordeaux is an invalid comparison - you're not comparing apples with apples. HS2 is not 9 times more expensive for equivalent stretches. The French did not add stations or connections to stations within the costs, there's no rolling stock included and the depots required were largely already there. There are no urban sections requiring expensive tunnelling and additional utilities movements or inner city stations in the costs. HS2 needs them as its being built for capacity. The specification for 18 trains an hour required slab track which has a much higher upfront cost. Hs2 was lowered into ground during the hybrid bill, requiring more earth works.
Away from significant differences in scope, the project has been hit by high construction inflation that the treasury wouldnt cover, adding to delay and significant increase in costs to hit a lower annual budget. UK construction sector is inefficient with layers of subcontracting adding to overall costs. Aside from much of the talk on planning, our construction industry needs a good look at, as does materials and energy costs. EWR bedford cambridge is not that much cheaper for equivalent stretches even though its a much lower spec.
Definitely with HS2 the decision not to do (at least one) station between London and Birmingham was also a significant cost driver.
The Tokaido Shinkansen for example has a stop on average every 20 miles and that is very typical except in places of very low population density like rural France.
And yes the French have built their TGV lines with few stops, but a lot of the French countryside has a population density of e.g. the Scottish Borders so it is more like saying Lockerbie doesn’t deserve a high speed station.
Certainly in France the places that get the Birmingham fast services on the Chiltern mainline are sizeable enough to get TGV service (I.e. High Wycombe, Haddenham and Thame Parkway, Bicester, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warwick, Dorridge and Solihull)
This is a misunderstanding of why hs2 is being built, what the advantages are and the practicalities. The places mentioned would benefit from HS2 anyway as their routes would be relieved by HS2 allowing greater frequencies and more seats. Stopping at intermediate stations would reduce the capacity of the hs2 line, reduce economic benefits from the connections of regional conurbations and unnecessary given the existing route benefits.
There are no benefits from HS2 for Buckinghamshire. None.
The West Coast mainline that might have higher frequency semi-fast service, but that goes a different way, and often the proposed stopping patterns aren’t much of an improvement - or are worse because of more intermediate stops.
In terms of the Chiltern mainline, there are only 300k one way trips from Birmingham moor street, 100k from Dorridge and 200k from Solihull (https://trainslive.uk/odm/journey.php?origin=BMO&destination=MYB) - and further south it’s faster to continue to use the classic line. So if you lost 2/3rd from moor street and half from the others so you might free up maybe 350k trips a year into Marylebone - or the same number as passengers boarding at Princes Risborough or perhaps the new planned station at Ardley.
Again the Chiltern mainline has no through service north of Birmingham so there is no possible “relief” from HS2 adding more capacity other than fewer people getting on in the Birmingham area.
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Part of the intention of HS2 is to increase frequencies on the existing lines which would be a net benefit to Buckinghamshire and helps supporting growth in the area. Claiming more stops at intermediate stations is a bad thing is incorrect: it would support the other urban areas in Buckinghamshire as well as providing much better local services. Not everyone is going to London. For Milton Keynes, there would be an uplift in fast services to London too.
For Chiltern, the biggest bottleneck is Marylebone, which is why Old Oak Common, being built by HS2, will help that line and provide better connectivity in the region once reconnected to South Ruislip. HS2 are also building the all the earth works and most of the connection for EWR to Aylesbury, something that adds costs to the project, but will be a benefit locally.
Adding loads of stops to HS2 just goes completely against its actual purpose.
Excellent piece. I hope some politicians are listening to you...
"It may be that HS2’s price tag could be the sum of hundreds of bat tunnel-esque decisions, yet as it stands we haven’t uncovered enough to total a tenth of HS2’s eye-watering costs."
Tours-Bordeaux is an invalid comparison - you're not comparing apples with apples. HS2 is not 9 times more expensive for equivalent stretches. The French did not add stations or connections to stations within the costs, there's no rolling stock included and the depots required were largely already there. There are no urban sections requiring expensive tunnelling and additional utilities movements or inner city stations in the costs. HS2 needs them as its being built for capacity. The specification for 18 trains an hour required slab track which has a much higher upfront cost. Hs2 was lowered into ground during the hybrid bill, requiring more earth works.
Away from significant differences in scope, the project has been hit by high construction inflation that the treasury wouldnt cover, adding to delay and significant increase in costs to hit a lower annual budget. UK construction sector is inefficient with layers of subcontracting adding to overall costs. Aside from much of the talk on planning, our construction industry needs a good look at, as does materials and energy costs. EWR bedford cambridge is not that much cheaper for equivalent stretches even though its a much lower spec.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebluearmchair/p/oh-mr-porter-what-shall-i-do-i-wanted?r=5kmhkr&utm_medium=ios
excellent
Great piece. Agenda-setting.
good post!
Definitely with HS2 the decision not to do (at least one) station between London and Birmingham was also a significant cost driver.
The Tokaido Shinkansen for example has a stop on average every 20 miles and that is very typical except in places of very low population density like rural France.
And yes the French have built their TGV lines with few stops, but a lot of the French countryside has a population density of e.g. the Scottish Borders so it is more like saying Lockerbie doesn’t deserve a high speed station.
Certainly in France the places that get the Birmingham fast services on the Chiltern mainline are sizeable enough to get TGV service (I.e. High Wycombe, Haddenham and Thame Parkway, Bicester, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warwick, Dorridge and Solihull)
This is a misunderstanding of why hs2 is being built, what the advantages are and the practicalities. The places mentioned would benefit from HS2 anyway as their routes would be relieved by HS2 allowing greater frequencies and more seats. Stopping at intermediate stations would reduce the capacity of the hs2 line, reduce economic benefits from the connections of regional conurbations and unnecessary given the existing route benefits.
There are no benefits from HS2 for Buckinghamshire. None.
The West Coast mainline that might have higher frequency semi-fast service, but that goes a different way, and often the proposed stopping patterns aren’t much of an improvement - or are worse because of more intermediate stops.
In terms of the Chiltern mainline, there are only 300k one way trips from Birmingham moor street, 100k from Dorridge and 200k from Solihull (https://trainslive.uk/odm/journey.php?origin=BMO&destination=MYB) - and further south it’s faster to continue to use the classic line. So if you lost 2/3rd from moor street and half from the others so you might free up maybe 350k trips a year into Marylebone - or the same number as passengers boarding at Princes Risborough or perhaps the new planned station at Ardley.
Again the Chiltern mainline has no through service north of Birmingham so there is no possible “relief” from HS2 adding more capacity other than fewer people getting on in the Birmingham area.
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Part of the intention of HS2 is to increase frequencies on the existing lines which would be a net benefit to Buckinghamshire and helps supporting growth in the area. Claiming more stops at intermediate stations is a bad thing is incorrect: it would support the other urban areas in Buckinghamshire as well as providing much better local services. Not everyone is going to London. For Milton Keynes, there would be an uplift in fast services to London too.
For Chiltern, the biggest bottleneck is Marylebone, which is why Old Oak Common, being built by HS2, will help that line and provide better connectivity in the region once reconnected to South Ruislip. HS2 are also building the all the earth works and most of the connection for EWR to Aylesbury, something that adds costs to the project, but will be a benefit locally.
Adding loads of stops to HS2 just goes completely against its actual purpose.