Kingfisher Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 It might be more relevant to the discussion if you could find evidence of HS1's benefits or otherwise. I mean if people are saying 'I'm not paying the extra for a train that is essentially slower', that wont ease congestion on the south east rail network into the capital. Has it had economic benefit outside London? We're going to spend £50 billion + on this we need to at least look at HS1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 18, 2014 Administrator Share Posted March 18, 2014 It might be more relevant to the discussion if you could find evidence of HS1's benefits or otherwise. I mean if people are saying 'I'm not paying the extra for a train that is essentially slower', that wont ease congestion on the south east rail network into the capital. Has it had economic benefit outside London? We're going to spend £50 billion + on this we need to at least look at HS1. In order to draw any comparison along those lines, you'd need to make the case that HS1 was built for the same reasons that HS2 is being built. It isn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Anything that gets you out of London at vast amount of speed is money well spent imo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyC Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 HS2 will be running within 1 mile of my house and I can't say im happy about, not that I've actively done anything to oppose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benireduk Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 You can get a train from Lichfield that gets you into Euston in just over an hour. Personally, I think that's bloody quick and don't see the need for a faster line. I think it's safe to say there will be a premium to pay for a seat on HS2, it just depends how much. If it gets you into London 10-15 mins quicker than it does now, I wouldn't pay the extra... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Why isn't this going to a referendum ? Ridiculous waste of our taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Why isn't this going to a referendum ? Ridiculous waste of our taxes Because they know they would lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Why isn't this going to a referendum ? Ridiculous waste of our taxes Should we have a referendum on every waste of tax payers money ? Starting with a referendum on whether or not we should have referendums on everything. ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 It might be more relevant to the discussion if you could find evidence of HS1's benefits or otherwise. I mean if people are saying 'I'm not paying the extra for a train that is essentially slower', that wont ease congestion on the south east rail network into the capital. Has it had economic benefit outside London? We're going to spend £50 billion + on this we need to at least look at HS1. In order to draw any comparison along those lines, you'd need to make the case that HS1 was built for the same reasons that HS2 is being built. It isn't.I don't think it's comparing apples and pears. If its not relieving congestion on the old SE network, how will HS2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 19, 2014 Administrator Share Posted March 19, 2014 It might be more relevant to the discussion if you could find evidence of HS1's benefits or otherwise. I mean if people are saying 'I'm not paying the extra for a train that is essentially slower', that wont ease congestion on the south east rail network into the capital. Has it had economic benefit outside London? We're going to spend £50 billion + on this we need to at least look at HS1. In order to draw any comparison along those lines, you'd need to make the case that HS1 was built for the same reasons that HS2 is being built. It isn't. I don't think it's comparing apples and pears. If its not relieving congestion on the old SE network, how will HS2? HS1 was built to join the Chunnel to the capital, not to relieve congestion. Crossrail is the (major) project to reduce congestion in the south east. If HS1 has a congestion goal, it would have been against air travel, not local trains. HS2 is NOT about cutting 10-15 minutes off journey times to London and people thinking that it is need to be a little more sceptical about what they read. It's primary purpose is to generally improve infrastructure, for passengers and particularly for freight. Its short term aim is to kick the construction industry. It's secondary purpose is to free up some capacity on the existing network so that it can also be improved. For comparison, the UK is spending £28bn between next year and 2020 on roads. HS1 will cost £21.4bn by 2026 (including £5.7bn contingency). Costs at 2013 prices. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Hmm... I wonder why it hasn't attracted domestic passenger traffic to and from towns and cities in Kent? The article I linked to claims that it's about cost and practicality. The old network isn't as fast, but it carries more regular trains to more destinations for less. HS2 will be faster, but the same cost and practicality issues will surely arise. This project, to me, is pie in the sky transport planning.A vanity project that doesn't begin to address the population/ wealth/ jobs spread issues we face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 It's almost as if you have ignored everything Limpid has been saying. HS1 was built for very different reasons to HS2. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 I haven't ignored him at all. The HS1 railway is there, it stops at stations in Kent. It's a premium service at a premium price, but back in 2011 it wasn't being used. According to the article people prefer the price and flexibility of the old network. The worrying part is that HS2 will be HS1 on steroids, less stops, more speed probably more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 20, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted November 20, 2023 Well what an enormous surprise. https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2023/11/17/new-hs2-boss-blasts-cost-plus-jobs-for-6bn-of-overspend/ New HS2 boss blasts cost-plus contracts for £6bn of overspend Quote HS2’s new boss has laid the blame for massive phase 1 budget overruns on the Government’s decision to let cost-plus contracts for main civil works. Quote Incoming executive chairman Sir Jon Thompson said that 89% of the cost increase from 2020 till now was down to these contracts alone. He said the decision had tied his hands preventing him from pulling levers on contractors to rein back costs. Quote He said: “We have to be upfront with you now, the Government decision to let cost-plus contracts where there are very few incentives or penalties around them does not provide me with any real levers on contractors to do better in relation to schedule and costs because they receive a marginal reduction in their fee. “If they spend 100% more than what was agreed, they only get 1% reduction in their fee.” Quote Sir Jon also warned that extra cost pressures loomed with plans to connect HS2 to the West Coast Main Line through a major redesign at the Handsacre junction, already a choke point on the route. This would need to be expanded requiring extra land and incurring extra cost, he said. Quote “A lessons learnt from Crossrail is you need a single controlling mind for the programme overall, rather than working through individual lines,” said Thompson. He revealed that the present working completion date for the project was now 2030. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 going OT I'm currently on a cost+ project, the owners of my company are currently trying to convert it to a lump sum because they don't understand how cost+ works (neither do the client which is even more bizarre) and think they can squeeze another percent out of the job if we aggressively pursue our subbies with claims people here will quit over how bad a decision that is, maybe me too in the long run, its the absolute golden goose, its the dream and we're binning it off its maybe the stupidest thing I've come across in 20 years in the industry going back OT, his comments aren't all true, its an exaggeration, the incentives are low that's for sure, its easy street, if a subbie comes in with a £1m variation if it was lump sum you'd line everything up to either chuck it out or to slash at it, on cost+ you shrug your shoulders and pass it up the line, you don't let it take the piss but the balance between recoverable and non recoverable has gone, it would also be open season for inflation and cost increases he also doesn't comment as to why you would go cost+, it will be because the design wasn't ready and the start of the project is rushed, cost+ is used when a project is done on the fly, build and design rather than design and build, so the answer is they should have waited 1-2 years before starting or failing that if they'd made it lump sum they'd just be looking at a monstrous variation account that would give them the same result anyway, so what he actually means is that 89% of the cost increase is because the budget was based on a cost plan which was done with indicative info only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts