HS2 Costs Explained.

[@Rail_Focus]

Noticed a bit of a mistake, I used 176km length rather than 220km. So HS2 lower cost is actually £300m /km, upper cost £336m /km.

[@charliebramley]

About the same as Hawaii's new metro

[@derloos]

Some other explanations I saw in various discussions so far: 1. Piecemeal work allocation; 2. Extensive subcontracting without cost controls; 3. Huge costs of access roads while other countries build from both sides simultaneously and use the already built parts for material deliveries; 4. Uncompetitive salaries in the public sector, preventing Civil Service from hiring competent people with engineering backgrounds who could do better job of planning the whole thing better.

[@MrDavidht]

Excellent explanation. As a retired civil engineer it sends me incandescent when I read and hear so much rubbish from the press and media. Through out my career the building of major infrastructure has met with increasing headwinds brought about by environmental demands and by increased levels of objections taken through the courts.

[@Rail_Focus]

Thank you. I feel I could've said more, but trying to explain everything in 8 minutes is always a challenge. Construction shouldn't cost so much in the UK, but it seems the Government can't get a grip of it, nor are willing to make the changes needed to help bring costs down

[@jamesgilbart2672]

In justifying HS2 it's important to consider the wider economic effects it will bring over the next century and the greatly increased sustainable travel capacity it will provide. Having gone so far with the project, it's crazy to go no further than Birmingham.

[@Rail_Focus]

Absolutely

[@mattpotter8725]

It should have started building the northern legs first, that way the north would have at least got better connectivity down to Birmingham, bringing economic benefits to a massively under invested huge area of the country, with the added benefit that those politicians in London would never cancel part of a project that really benefited the capital. Even the way it has been built it disgusts me what has happened. Even if the northern legs got delayed, even indefinitely, I don't see why, apart from political reasons, all the land acquired and thus planning wasn't kept in place until the country was in a position to deliver the northern sections. Again the North and Midlands gets screwed over to spend money on the already thriving South East.

[@peterjohnson1739]

When opposing HS2 on the grounds of cost people ignore the statistics at 7:10 … 30,000 workers and 2,000 apprentices are building HS2. Much of the cost goes in their salaries over the build period. They pay tax on those salaries and don’t claim Social Security. Allow for that income to the treasury and savings in DWP costs and the real headline cost reduces. The apprentices represent a significant investment in this country’s future. The Chancellor tells us she wants “growth” if she’s serious she should reverse the cuts made to HS2 and build the full route to both Leeds and Manchester.

[@Rail_Focus]

That's the frustrating thing, all those workers paying tax isn't reflected in the HS2 business case, nor are wider benefits such as the unlocking space above Euston for development. So appears on paper as if HS2 has few financial benefits, only costs

[@DavidShepheard]

4:36 "Your bat structure is detracting from the view of our landfill." - You couldn't make it up!

[@Rail_Focus]

Exactly.

[@rtruscott]

Excellent succinct video, clearly putting in context how the cost of #HS2 is not that unreasonable, whilst correctly noting that the amenity mitigation of a few southern rural residents along the route have been lavishly protected, at it seems the expense of completing HS2 to the north where the greatest benefit will be felt (& I think at the expense of views of & from HS2 trains)!

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

It's also worth noting that other countries would usually fund mitigation factors such as the bat tunnel separately to the line itself, so it's not necessarily those factors per se that have added to the cost. Similarly, one of the reasons why the alternative proposal for getting to Manchester appears cheaper than the original plan is because it doesn't include the cost of the tunnel to Piccadilly, because that's now being counted as part of NPR

[@SWRural-fk2ub]

It's not the few southern rural residents who were protected with the Chiltern tunnels but the National Landscape (was AONB), and that is due to that such landscapes should be protected unless there is no other solution possible. Thus, had there been that policy when the M40 was built it would have had to be in tunnel also.

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

With regards to mitigation factors such as the bat tunnel, when other countries do have such things they're usually funded separately to the line itself, so that's probably the reason for them adding to the cost, rather than having them per se

[@Rail_Focus]

Indeed. Typically European the line costs are just that. But HS2 includes stations, trains and additional structures

[@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg]

HS2 costs also include complying with planning conditions and all, other statutory bodies requirements ( there are dozens of them), consultant fees, land and property purchase.

[@rppacademic]

Without hs2 you lose the future of the country.

[@rppacademic]

@@Inkyminkyzizwoz thank you!

[@royatkin161]

Now we are seeing the construction and realisation of what’s involved eventually it will be worth it , my only gripe is it would have been started at both ends Manchester to London like the channel tunnel, it was never going to happen .

[@Rail_Focus]

If you would like to consider supporting the channel click: www.patreon.com/Chris_Rail_Focus or become a Member here on KZbin Or you can support the channel by making a purchase on my Redbubble gallery www.redbubble.com/people/engphotography/shop Or alternatively by becoming a KZbin member

[@8492946able]

HS2 must be fully built Both Eastern and Western Legs

[@Rail_Focus]

100%

[@andrewhotston983]

If you're paying for it, then fine.

[@8492946able]

@ had to pay for crossrail

[@8492946able]

@ I’m still paying for Brexit even though I voted to remain

[@8492946able]

@@andrewhotston983 what a stupid comment to make

[@pwhitewick]

Weyhey.... I am due a railway walk soon! Cheers for posting. Nice edit.

[@Rail_Focus]

Hope you didn't mind the reference 😉

[@pwhitewick]

@@Rail_Focus of course not.

[@seprishere]

I think HS2 is expensive (a) because of NIMBYs and (b) because governments insist on meddling, as well as (as you say) the cost of modern infrastructure and moving existing infrastructure.

[@peterjohnson1739]

I see you listed the Stonehenge tunnel as a costly project. Unfortunately this shortsighted government has cancelled it. That project has been through far too many planning and Public Enquiry rounds all of which cost a huge amount with nothing to show for it. Put simply the entire southwest needs that upgrade to the A303. Both English Heritage and the National Trust support the plans - because they’ll improve the environment at Stonehenge and reconnect the monument to its wider surroundings.

[@jossdeiboss]

People always think about the cost as if it was a electric bill that you need to pay immediately. Even if it was 100 billion, that would be spread out in a decade or two, which lowers the annual cost to some billion. Not that much, considering UK GDP and - needless to say - the huge benefits for the whole country.

[@Rail_Focus]

This is true, but I think we do need to acknowledge that construction in the UK is expensive and have an open debate

[@jossdeiboss]

@@Rail_Focus It may be expensive, but I think many people forget the standard of living in the UK is quite higher compared to other European countries. So, costs are definitely higher for that reason alone. On top of that, I agree that the UK may be exaggerating with the "mitigations"... To be honest, trains are the least pollutant transportation method (in terms of emissions, sounds and land usage), so I don't know why you would need an experimental "bat bridge", which sounds extremely dumb. I am pretty sure bats can fly everywhere without the need to cross the 25 kV OLE magnetic field. If I think of other nature bridges - like the one built in the Netherlands -, they are definitely a waste of money, as no animal feels safe on those bridges (could be the sound of the traffic or vibrations coming from the highway, keeping animals on either side of it). Yes, probably without the mitigation we could have saved some billions, but I don't think we would have saved a great amount. Most of it is just because it's expensive to build in hilly Britain with British salaries and British material supply costs - and British engineering! As you mention in the video, it does not make sense to build cheaply and then waste the money in continuous maintenance. High speed is effective only if trains can zoooooom through city centres and mountains...otherwise let's just quadruple the mainlines and kill the British "rail revolution". Apologies for the long answer.

[@MrLOFTYBOBBY]

Every time new infrastructure is announced it too long for the process to place I.E red tape, they moan about the cost, but materials go through the roof and they have to worry about the enviroment this project is doing a great lot of work to hide the track through tunnels etc. They had the same when they built the channel Tunnel they moaned about the cost then but now it is not mentioned anymore. And it is part of every day life for those travelling to and from Europe.

[@mattp6460]

thanks

[@Andrewjg_89]

As long as the Government keeps on paying more money for HS2 to be built and new trains to be built to be used on HS2. And with Phase 2 to extend HS2 to Manchester, Leeds and the North of England.

[@dominiccottrill2387]

This initial "low ball estimate" is an extremely important point. It was the same for the 2012 Olympics: an initial low ball of £2B was made. It was just people pulling numbers out of their backside. The final design estimate was £6B and the delivery was nearly on budget. So, this initial low ball number must be dismissed as such.

[@andrewhotston983]

Even though it was the basis of the project being approved? You wouldn't accept supermarkets putting a "low ball" price on your shopping, and then charging you double at the till!

[@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg]

​@andrewhotston983 But the Contractors had no say in formulating the budget estimate. That was produced by an independant cost consultant.

[@andrewhotston983]

@@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg So the contractors have colluded in the fiction! If the price was unachievable, they shouldn't have bid for the work.

[@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg]

There was no bidding. The contracts were let on a cost plus basis for 2 reasons. The scope of the works was unknown when the contracts were let and contractors are refusing to accept very large all risk contracts because their profit margins don't cover the risk.

[@andrewhotston983]

@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg Which should have stopped the project dead in its tracks! It had disaster written all over it from Day 1.

[@RickBeton]

Vanity tunnels. Those demanding them really just wanted to scupper the whole project by causing cost inflation. They succeeded only in wasting a lot of money.

[@Rail_Focus]

True

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

Is that the Wirral Way in the video? I recognised the bridge carrying the Borderlands Line over Woodchurch Road

[@Rail_Focus]

Yup it certainly is 😁

[@zacurrya9485]

Did you hear about louise's (transport minister) tram idea? I can't wait, always thought central london needed trams and the cars ruined it, where do you think they will first implement the dijon, paris-style trams (which she said they took inspiration from), and what makes dijon trams different to other european ones of the same style?

[@Rail_Focus]

I saw the headline, but haven't read the detail yet.

[@mattpotter8725]

More money for London then, that figures? When is the north going to get some investment comparable to Crossrail and the current iteration of HS2 (and I say this as someone who has lived and worked in London, not from there originally, and doesn't there anymore)?

[@DavidShepheard]

Trams failed in London specifically because the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the same council that later refused to install sprinklers in Grenfell Tower) didn't want working people traveling through their area on trams. Westminster Council was also obstructive. In order to get rid of that issue, any roads that trams need to go down need to be handed over to the Mayor of London.

[@DavidShepheard]

@@mattpotter8725 Re: "More money for London then, that figures?" Crossrail was first proposed in 1941. It took over EIGHTY years for London to actually get it. The "Thameslink 2000" program was delivered 20 years later. The Bakerloo Line Extension was first proposed in 1913. Londoners are still waiting for it over 110 years later. The idea that we have to stop investing in London to have money to spend on other parts of the UK is a false narrative. Do not believe it. There is no reason why we can not have multiple modernisation works going on at the same time. We should, for example, be electrifying all the railways in England and Wales and most of the railways in Scotland, so that electric freight trains can move things to most of the UK. One thing we do need to get away from is the idea that fare revenue needs to pay back the cost of railway construction works. That might be viable with things like Crossrail, which is pulling in 1/6th of the passengers in Great Britain, but it's not going to work for smaller cities or rural areas, because bridges over things like motorways or rivers are still expensive, even if the local population is smaller. That is the real culprit for people in the North not getting funding. We have far too much focus on the return of investment and too little focus on the social benefits. (For example, any plan that would see a new railway station next to an NHS hospital should gain extra weighting, because of the ability for that line to get families of patients to hospital and because of the improvement in quality of life for hospital workers.)

[@zacurrya9485]

@@mattpotter8725 She never said London specifically, she said 'nationally' if I remember right

[@willhemmings]

I don't think HS2 have given any consideration to protecting the kingfisher I saw perched on a bridge railing at the north west end of the Ruislip golf course, nor the roe deer I saw in the field near that little pond north west of Balsall Common, or the ecosystem that was an enormous tree in the field just south of the river in Stoneleigh park, or the tawney owl I saw flitting through Broadwells wood, all during the summer of 2018; the watercourse with its overhanging trees just south east of Thorpe Mandeville and the quiet bridleway north-west in the direction of Edgecot past the enormous hill by Culworth with those birds hanging dead and lifeless from the branches of the tree, of course, all gone

[@Rail_Focus]

HS2 is fulfilling all of its legal obligations as set by Natural England.

[@JohnHoward-wc9kk]

well if we don't de-carbonise our transport system by reducing the demand for air travel, getting freight off our motorways and improving public transport options versus the private car, all the wildlife will be gone anyway. How you can make these observations when £100m has been spent on protecting one single habitat of one single type of Bat is beyond me !.

[@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg]

The construction industry has employed sub contractors for decades. There are very few directly employed site operatives. The amount of earthworks has probably restricted the use of the formation level of the tracks from being used as a temporary access road as prolonged use and exposure to the weather will turn the surface into a swamp and result in extensive remediation work. I take your points about hiring civil servants to do jobs they know nothing about.

[@Rail_Focus]

With regards to earth moving, there has been a big emphasis on moving as much as possible within the trace, which given the amount of material being moved is the only option, but it has meant constructing a haul almost the entire length. Where there's no room for the road they've been using a lot of lime stabilisation

[@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg]

​@@Rail_Focuslime is a good material for stabilising a formation. When there is a lot of excavation work to do and the surface is open to the weather for a long time the top 600mm of earth can be written off by removing and backfilling with a graded stone sub base. The sub base would cost £50 plus a cubic metre. Given the area the cost would run into millions.

[@andrewhotston983]

The UK rail industry delivers abysmal value for money. HS2 is just the extreme. As the UK heads rapidly for bankruptcy, I wouldn't be at all surprised if HS2 never sees trains running along it, and we lose a lot of branch lines and secondary routes because the country can no longer afford the luxury of a rail network.

[@Rail_Focus]

Construction in the UK as a whole is expensive, not just rail.

[@andrewhotston983]

​@@Rail_FocusRail seems especially prone to cost overruns and delivering poor products and service.

[@tonycollyweston6182]

The people who hide their assets offshore need to be taxed or be kicked out of the country which they short change.

[@willyoung8257]

To add my views. I do think the fatal flaw of the project was to solve what is a capacity problem on the west coast mainline with a gold plated high speed line instead of something more conventional. We also have a skills shortage in this country which inflates wages on these sort of projects. I know first hand of people being offered salaries above 2 times what they were earning for comparible engineering roles elsewhere. Look at china or france where they have comitted to long term plans. We need to somehow end the stop start nature of these big projects and short term planning decisions.

[@Rail_Focus]

China and France are building 360km/h railways, so HS2 isn't trying to do anything groundbreaking. The speed has nothing to do with the skills shortage, but HS2 has imported knowledge from France, so it's not like we're starting from scratch. The biggest issue is the boom and bust investment cycle this country seems to be stuck in.

[@neilelkins2009]

@@Rail_Focus I always find it funny when people use the over-engineered argument. Can you imagine what the papers would have written if they had specced it as another 125mph railway? 'Britain has slowest railways in world what a laughing stock' etc.

[@andrewhotston983]

​@@neilelkins2009I always laugh when rail enthusiasts can't stand any criticism of rail projects. Even the name HS2 was a mistake, and things have just gone downhill from there.

[@benphillips5041]

A conventional line wouldn't be much cheaper. The most expensive bits are the innercity stations and the lines through city centres to reach them. In Europe, they've already built these bits and extend from them, put them into separate projects or serve stations on conventional lines. Hs2 is building for capacity, not just on wcml, but also the city centres it serves (or was supposed to serve). This adds almost half the cost of phase1. The 225mph bits are not too far off the same costs as ewr Bedford-Cambridge.

[@Michael-61-n3l]

another good piece _ everything in uk costs a lot _ how much money has DfT spent planning lower thames crossing _ 800-900 million & not a brick laid !!! _ as for over engineered _ better to spend now to build correctly than be constantly redoing sections later

[@Rail_Focus]

Thanks

[@peterjohnson1739]

The Baltimore Bridge was under-engineered it collapsed when hit by a ship! It’s better to build really well once than to build cheap and regret the decision later.

[@croftoninspace3301]

They're going to extension HS2 from Euston to crew in the future.?

[@Rail_Focus]

Euston definitely, Crewe hopefully

[@mattevans4377]

If it had been started in the North and ended in the South, none of the problems would have happened, and everything would be done to complete the project in full

[@Rail_Focus]

Can't quite see your logic. If it started from the north there would be nowhere for trains to go. The southern section of the WCML is the critical bottleneck that needed addressing.

[@mattevans4377]

@Rail_Focus I'm saying if they started building from Leeds and Manchester, instead of London, we'd get the whole original Y route delivered as quickly and as cheaply as possible

[@Rail_Focus]

I know what you mean, but there would be nowhere for the trains to go. HS2 only works as a whole with the core section to London. There's no way construction of the whole route could've been started at once.

[@mattevans4377]

@Rail_Focus Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it starts up North, and they work there way down to London, with it terminating in London. No phase 1 and phase 2 rubbish, just one phase, start to finish, but construction starts in the North and works South. Guaranteed half the time at least, and a fraction of the budget, because the political will to get it to London would be there

[@Rail_Focus]

Wasn't/isn't possible. It had to be phased due to the size of the Hybrid Bills. Plus there wouldn't have been/ isn't the manpower to build it in one go. I know what you're getting at, but it just wasn't possible.

[@john1703]

It is not so much that HS2 costs what you explain, it is more that the original estimates were so woefully low. Then the northern legs were cancelled, which does make it an expensive way to get only to Birmingham. We were conned!

[@bk2544]

Nah, my friend worked on it as a PM and he said the set up is a joke. The contract set up is really poor resulting in wasted time and contractors not motivated to work cheaply.

[@Rail_Focus]

I do make a point to that effect at the end.

[@benphillips5041]

What were the original estimates?

[@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg]

​@@benphillips504132 billion.

[@john1703]

@@benphillips5041 2009: The Gordon Brown government estimated the cost of HS2 would be £37.5 billion in 2009 prices 2011-2013: The cost increased by £12.6 billion, including £7.5 billion for rolling stock and £5.1 billion for construction 2015: A budget of £55.7 billion was set for the WHOLE of HS2 2019: The final costs were estimated to be between £72.1 and £78.4 billion 2020: The Oakervee Review revealed the total project could cost up to £106.6 billion This was for the whole project to Manchester and Leeds. 2023: As of February, £24.7 billion had been spent, of which £22.5 billion had been spent on Phase 1. Sunak then cancelled everything effectively north of B'ham and Euston will not be reached for many more years. 2024: HS2 Ltd now estimates the cost of the line between London Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street to be up to £67 billion in 2023/24 prices. The eastern leg to Leeds was scrapped in 2021 and the northern leg to Manchester was scrapped in October 2023. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) gave "red" ratings to both Phase 1 and Phase 2a, meaning they considered these parts of the project "unachievable.

[@physiocrat7143]

It was sold as a means of increasing capacity on the delusion that a high speed railway would only cast a teeny weeny bit more expensive than a conventional speed one.

[@Rail_Focus]

It will release capacity on the southern section of the WCML and can still increase capacity further north, but it must go to Crewe.

[@physiocrat7143]

@Rail_Focus It could have been done at a fraction of the cost, mostly by reinstating routes closed in the late 1960s, plus some platform lengthening. Euston needs to be rebuilt anyway.

[@benphillips5041]

@@physiocrat7143 it is reinstating routes closed in the 1960s. Two of them form part of the line to Birmingham. They are building for capacity so you'd still need to get to Central London and Central Birmingham and you'd still need extra platforms in the city centres. That's the big cost.

[@benphillips5041]

@@physiocrat7143 its not a delusion, that's still the case. Compare and contrast building the high speed bits to EWR Bedford-Cambridge or to Transpennine Route Upgrade. The problem is construction is very expensive in this country.

[@Rail_Focus]

@physiocrat7143 reopening closed routes is really not that straightforward. There is no route which follows the WCML and I imagine you know enough to realise reinstating the GCR is not a realistic option

[@antontsau]

So, recording. Everybody who has a smallest chance to obstruct the project of course pushes it with all available force, as the one-in-generation rackeetering possibility. Bats! Fields! Swamps! 200years old hut! Local community! Road! They may be harmed!!!! GOVT, GIVE GIVE GIVE US MONEY! As usual, as with any govt project.

[@Rail_Focus]

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, but there's an element of truth.

[@bk2544]

Nah, my friend worked on it as a PM and he said the set up is a joke. The contract set up is really poor resulting in wasted time and contractors not motivated to work cheaply.

[@Rail_Focus]

True the cost structure provides little incentive to build as cheaply as possible. But at the same time the Government set the contract type and the DfT set a very rigid set of specifications

[@benphillips5041]

​@@Rail_Focusdidn't they reward for faster delivery? Then the govt decided to slow construction...

[@johnburns4017]

Not enough study was undertaken to improve existing lines, and reuse disused lines, like the Gt.Central. For example, the WCML could have had all bottlenecks removed, made all 4 track to Weaver junction at Runcorn, had incab signals to have trains run at 140mph plus, build the Stafford bypass, take Manchester trains on an upgraded line via Stoke keeping them off the northern WCML improving capacity etc.

[@Rail_Focus]

Great Central claxon 🚨. It really is a nonsense idea.

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus The Gt.Central runs right down the centre of the country. The Aylesbury to Rugby section could have been reused branching it into the WCML north of Rugby. This effectively gives the WCML two extra tracks on the southern section. Existing four tracks to London with two extra tracks via Aylesbury to London. Also new local services incorporated. Then the southern WCML will never get clogged up. Also excellent for freight.

[@thorley1969]

@@johnburns4017 Unfortunately the Great Central idea was discounted years ago as the alignment would not allow for the speeds required plus much of the route now has building on it so you would need costly diversions. Upgrading the WCML would bring in years of disruption, just like the last time it was done and even then the extra capacity released has already been soaked up. Yes, infrastructure costs, there's no escaping that but we can't keep scrimping on costs as it comes back to bite us eventually and ends up costing the country more in the long run.

[@johnburns4017]

@@thorley1969 Only 14 miles in total of the Gt.Central has been built on. Some sections are still in use. The line was built for 100mph when trains could not reach that speed. The section in question, Aylesbury to the WCML north of Rugby is largely intact. A tunnel is used for car testing which could be reclaimed. The line could be bypassed around a town or two leaving a station. This would give two extra tracks on the WCML going south into London, branching off the WCML north of rugby, releasing capacity. Needed regional services could be introduced. The Gt.Central could be the link from the WCML to the Chiltern Line or HS2 phase 1 into London. All there, cheap to do. Large sections of the WCML have already been renovated so large section are already done.

[@johnburns4017]

The existing rail network does actually work. The priority for HMG is the sky high energy bills, which means directing money at energy independence by rapidly installing wind turbines, solar farms, grid storage batteries, etc, not HS2. HS2 HAS to be mothballed. Maybe complete OOC to Aylesbury running onto the Chiltern. Then when we do not have people dying of hypothermia, in fuel piverty, we restart.

[@Rail_Focus]

Fuel bills and HS2 have nothing to do with each other.

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus HS2 or fuel poverty that us the choice. HMG have a limited budget. They have to prioritize. HS2 is well down the list. HMG has to care for people and if that means shelving a money gobbling project, a project that is far from urgent, then so be it.

[@davidpnewton]

HS2 is not worth cancelling now. It is too far along. However it should never have been done in the first place. There are far, far, far better uses that the money spent on it could have been put to. Even slowing it down to a 190 mph line would have been much better because it would have made the infrastructure a good deal better value for money. Examples of better things? Completion of electrification of all the routes envisioned in the electric spine plan. Replacement of cheap, bodge job catenary on the ECML and Anglian Main Line. Replacement rolling stock for places still using 35 or 40 year old trains.

[@Rail_Focus]

We need HS2, electrification, upgrades and rolling stock replaced, not either or. And if you look around the network rolling stock is being replaced and upgrades are going ahead despite HS2 being constructed.

[@clivebroadhead4381]

Rail Baltica is only costing £3.5billion compared to HS2 estimated to cost upto £100billion?

[@Rail_Focus]

Like I said, there are several reasons, which need to be better understood. But there are few international comparisons with HS2. Different laws, planning regs, density, labour costs etc.

[@arthur1670]

White elephant…. Birmingham to London was not even that full capacity. They needed to build the Manchester Birmingham first, then it would not have been a white elephant 🐘

[@johnburns4017]

All London & B'ham trains to Manchester can go via an upgraded line via Stoke, taking them off the WCML releasing capacity. They still can using HS2 phase 1.

[@Rail_Focus]

🙄

[@arthur1670]

@@Rail_Focus just a bunch of London mps wanting to get to Birmingham faster otherwise would have started other direction

[@Rail_Focus]

🙄

[@clivebroadhead4381]

Why is HS2 hugely expensive compared to the High Speed Line between Estonia and Poland? Surely road bridges are equally required through the Baltic countries!

[@Rail_Focus]

@@clivebroadhead4381 probably not so many within the space of 220km. The video also explains other reasons. But it's also worth noting other countries do not usually include stations, depots or rolling stock within their per km costs, whereas the stated HS2 cost includes everything.

[@physiocrat7143]

Thinly populated

[@manwingchi9156]

China can built it much cheaper. 😂😂😂

[@Rail_Focus]

🙄

[@luelou8464]

HS2 just leaves me wondering how the Elizabeth line got built at relatively reasonable costs.

[@Rail_Focus]

HS2 phase 1 is about 9 times longer than the core section of Crossrail.

[@benphillips5041]

Don't forget the costs of crossrail are in prices of more than a decade ago, you need to add inflation and then there's the higher cost of materials and energy are far higher since covid. Latest estimates for Crossrail 2 are 40bn.

[@TrevorWilliams-fq8mg]

Crossrail is a totally different project. HS2 has 8,276 conditions to satisfy. It was also let on fixed price tendered contracts. HS2 has been let on a cost plus contract because the scope of works was unknown when the contracts were placed and also because Contractors are refusing to accept fixed price contracts when the contracts are valued as being in the billions because their profit margins typically 2 % don't cover the risk.

[@ianbird9143]

If we had built a train line for 100 or 125 mph it would of saved £100,000’s Trying to get near 200 mph has added so much cost… Also millions on saving 2 bats and a newt have added loads as well ….

[@benphillips5041]

Disagree. EWR Bedford to Cambridge is the same distance as hs2 phase 2a and the estinatee cost is 6bn for 36miles as opposed to ph2a which was to be 5.2-7.2bn. They are lowering ewr in a similar way to hs2. Phase 1's extra costs come from innercity sections and stations which you'd need anyway.

[@Rail_Focus]

EWR are proposing building an actual 700m long tunnel to protect bats. Will make the Sheephouse structure look like a bargain in comparison. If speed is such an issue they wouldn't bother allowing space for the NR tracks alongside the HS2 tracks with the structure.

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

*would have And he literally explains in the video that it wouldn't actually save that much, plus the lower benefits would outweigh any savings

[@nwcitroen2222]

That's a lot of ignorance in just 3 sentences...

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

@@nwcitroen2222What's ignorant about it?

[@geoff1201]

HS2 is a waste of money, it should have been spent on upgrades to the whole network, notsome vanity project.

[@mattpotter8725]

That had already been done, or have you been asleep for the last few decades. The WCML for example, which HS2 was built to relieve capacity and bottlenecks couldn't be upgraded any further than had anyway been done. To upgrade any further would have cost what HS2 should have cost without all the stupid, unnecessary tunnels and cuttings.

[@Rail_Focus]

Upgrade what exactly? You do realise the WCML.was upgraded and was full within the space of 10 years.

[@tonycollyweston6182]

You don't know what you're talking about

[@clivebroadhead4381]

Compare the route of HS2 with Rail Baltica! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Baltica#:~:text=Rail%20Baltica%20will%20be%20built,TSI%20%E2%80%93%20P2%2C%20F1).

[@Rail_Focus]

Apples and oranges

[@guyb3785]

Thanks

[@Rail_Focus]

Thank you 😊