At this point I think the Tories want the project to fail so they have an excuse not to put money into big public projects anymore and give it to themselves instead
@ he ”was” but I believe it was to help himself get re-elected in 2024 if he stayed prime minister
Год назад+18
@@Fuzzy9001 well, but he did, what ever is the reason, he understood that the success of the project was also his own success. I am just trying to make the poing that by being better critics we can actually force to get better results. If anything I would critizize that the tories didnt start an HS3 by now after a long term in goverment.
The Japanese started using the bullet trains back in 1964. We got the HST Intercity 125 in 1975 as a stop gap while we made the APT tilting train, some of those stop gap trains are still in use almost 50yrs later. 60yrs after the Japanese and we're only got 68 miles of high speed rail in HS1. Its pathetic how little our transport system has changed, as we cling onto short term cost saving ideas which cost us far more in the future
"we're only got 68 miles of high speed rail in HS1. ".. HS1 line built in 1998 was just a French LGV high-speed line and first Eurostar trains were based on TGV trains. In the 90s UK had zero knowledge in building real HS lines (speed > 280-300 kph)
It doesn't matter if it is overbudget. At least less so than the road building projects that we have that are currently way overbudget yet never get criticised for it. Only when its public transit is money a problem.
Every single government budget is always way over the planned expenditure. Are those who plan these projects knowledgeable enough to get out of bed? A budget has to take all possibilities into consideration, but all projects seem to miss something. Of course they have unlimited resources as the tories have proven.
The Government will abandon it and spend even more cash turning it into a motorway. Then all the objectors to 'occasional trains on a dark railway' will be subjected to a continuous roar form a brightly lit super-highway.
@@verybiased907 not true A46 dualing from Widmerpool to Newark, started 2008/2009 finished on time and on budget, was actually way ahead at one point, but lots of snow followed by rain slowed them down.
I am Japanese and live in an area that does not benefit from the Shinkansen. It seems that the Shinkansen will finally be built in 10 years to my city, but I really wanted it to be built 40 years ago. During those 40 years, the economic disparity with other regions widened, young people fled to Tokyo and other places, and lost its vitality. Making HS2 is not wrong. The mistake is that while France and Germany were laying the groundwork for high-speed rail, the UK neglected to do so.
150 billion GBP to build it and Japan has magLev for a fraction. Thats the problem for us. Its a ripoff. I think we'll all be buzzing around in oversized drones soon anyway.
I work on HS2 at the moment. I think one of the biggest issues is that everything has been sucontracted out and as little as possible is being done in house. In theory thats more efficient but its a nightmare and costs increase a lot more when theres inevitable changes. It makes way more sense to me to keep as much of it as possible in house to develop the knowledge so you can continue building in the future
But ther is no I house building in the Construction Industry as everything is Sub contracted out to Sub Contractors. The HS2 Contracts are all let on an actual cost basis. They root of the problem lies in an insufficient costplan put in place in 2010. Then to add to the oroblem no inflstion was added. Then years later the contracts are designed and tendered on an actual cost basis reflecting the individual calendar programme dates the contracts are built to. This is how all government funded projects are let so the original budget can never be enough unless there is no inflation.
@trevorwilliams632 utter nonsense. Transport projects always include the risk adjusted capital cost, inflation adjustment, and optimism bias. The guidance for this is available online for all to see in TAG and the Green Book.
Small correction: HS1 doesn’t go to Dover. For domestic traffic the HS1 only goes from St Pancras to Ashford, the trains then swap to the usual rails and are limited to the usual speeds. The international HS goes from St Pancras to Folkestone where it goes into the tunnel
@@Arltratlo the domestic service is run by Southeastern Trains (which is indirectly owned by the UK government) using Javelin trains built by Hitachi, a Japanese company. The international service is run by Eurostar which is owned by French, Belgium, and Canadian companies. The actual high speed rails are owned by a subsidiary of the UK government but has been leased to Canadian investment entities. Yes it’s called Eurostar as it’s in Europe, just like the two countries it connects
@@Arltratlo Important to know, there are several locomotives in use designed by both the French and the British. The operating company is operated from London but is owned by a multitude of other businesses in France/US/Belgium/UK. The HS1 network extends to the tunnel (which connects France and England) and is used by both international services (eurostar) and domestic services (South Eastern Railways (Useless piece of sh**)). For domestic services (South Eastern), it runs at full operating speed from St Pancras to Ashford International, moving to the old lines with an operating speed of ~80mph.
@@hebikotei9578 i am living in a small town in the nowhere of north Germany, not even 1km away from me is a HSR with speeds up to 280kph and its here for nearly 30 years... looks like the Brexshit done nothing positive to you, but how do i know, i am not traveling to the UK anymore and not buying anything from it... have fun with the French!
As a rail engineering student in the US, it's amazing to see how common the mistakes listed in thus video are. The high speed rail project in California faced a lot of similar challenges with mismanagement and trying to tackle too large of a project. I'm not sure if this was an issue with HS2, but in California there was a crippling reliance on expensive consultants for project management, with an incredibly understaffed internal team.
Sounds like an incentive misalignment. Politicians don't get rewarded for doing the boring but practical extended rollout. Instead they get incentivized to go with huge showpieces.
The problem with HS2 is costs have gone through the roof. It was initially projected to cost £30bn but now is expected to cost £100bn because they dramatically underestimated the cost of buying property that was blocking the route. The London to Birmingham route is designed to run at speeds of 250mph so the line had to be so straight and has to run through a lot of properties. So much money could’ve been saved had it run alongside the M40 motorway. French and Italian high speed rail is cheaper because the lines run alongside their highways.
@@chrisj9700 I'd doubt 250mph trains will even run simply because it's currently non standard. Probs will be closer to 200mph or 320km/h (Could just brand it as IC 325 to stay consistant with express branding)
@@davidty2006 Building a track now that is capable of 250mph but having trains run "only" 200mph is much more efficient and cheaper than having to upgrade all of that track once trains are capable of those speeds
Strange how the UK is unable to build even 1 high speed line, while a country like Spain, much sneered at in certain parts of the UK, has an eleborate network linking it to other parts of the EU.
Spain is a lot bigger and sparsely populated compared to the UK. It's a lot easy to build train on dry planes than it is to build having to buy out thousands of properties
@@mrcaboosevg6089 dry planes? Brother have u seen northern spain? Have u seen Spain in general ? A lot of mountains had to be tunneled and land bought , we have more mountains in one community that u have in the whole islands ,so obviously someone pocketed that money buddy , instead of coping so hard ask for the money back
HS2 has been done in a pretty incompetent manner, but future generations will look at it as a key part of the rail network in the UK. They will wonder how we coped without it. It is coming at a huge cost at a time that is difficult economically, but prices will only rise, so the sooner, the better for this sort of project.
They'll wonder how we coped with already expansive train network, with HS2 only improving trains times by 20 ish minutes, while costing the tax payer and our natural eco system massively.
@@MEHOLE Read again. Main reason to build HS2 is lack of capacity, not shortening the travel journey. There are more passengers than public transit allows - HS2 is a solution. How does it affect natural eco-system? Architects decided to build long tunnels under the forests to preserve the nature. UK needs HS2.
It's embarrassing that we're seemingly so incompetent at almost anything rail related. Although, at this stage with the infrastructure we've developed to build HS2 and the amount already spent, it'd be ridiculous to scrap it.
It can be argued that these kind of projects are also jobs programs. The American's Artemis program comes to mind: woefully over budget but it keeps tens of thousands employed and results in stimulation to the economy. The danger of this is that most government money for these projects falls into the hands of only a few executives, thereby negating trickle down effects.
It's an aversion to risk, which steadily increased over the past 20 years that I was involved in major railway projects. The design phase for each project gets longer and longer and hence more distant from the original requirements. Also, some parts have to be designed and built together, eg the major stations and approach routes. You can't plan a high-speed route into Euston if you have no idea on the precise alignment of the platform you are aiming to join up to. (The last carriage is designed to leave the platform at 70mph so a smooth alignment is a major requirement.
I have many stations in many play throughs of Open Transport Tycoon which prove you wrong. The jankiest jank is absolutely fine, never a passenger complaint! /s 😼
Nothing technical there, many countries have done that very easily. The problem comes from Westminster, in not having good plans and advisors before hand. Spending years as a talking shop (like Wembley Stadium -10 years chat, then expect it built in two!) There are three HS trains in Europe,AVE,TGV and FRECCLAROSSAA 1000. all have an average 198mph and have been doing it for years! The UK doesn't even know what a Maglev train is!! Years behind, when once we were first! HS2 is behind the curve, the TGV has its boggies under the ends of two carriages, using the electric motors as brakes and broke the world record ( 574KM/H 372MPH) Sept 2009- so there are NO excuses, we are 14 years behind the French and its not even running! Couldn't organise a p...u. in a brewery
How much do you think that requirement is worth? Lets say they can build the station now for 10 million, and you will have to wait till last carriage is out of station before you can accelerate full speed. Or they can align it all and you can accelerate from standing still? How much time would that save? are we talking an extra 100 million? 200?
It's amazing that there's so much opposition and getting this through has been so difficult. Britain is the ideal place for high speed rail, it's small, it's very densely populated and it's rich; connecting the entire country through high speed rail should be a no brainer in Britain.
Agreed, really wanted hear something in depth on the opposition e.g. the NIMBYs causing delays to sections of the line and even parts of the line to change route.
@@craftinteemo7055 Let them stay elsewhere, I'm here for a brief fact-checked coverage. It's just enough for a general understanding of the issue and provides a vector for further in-depth research for those who are interested.
This is a great video, far too often you see people talking about HS2 who have no idea what it actually means, but you went to the effort of researching and calling in experts. It shows!
Too true right? The normally reliable "The Bunker" podcast just did an entire episode about HS2 without explaining what the project is for, or just asserting - without challenge - that nobody knew what it was for.
IIRC (I wish I could find the source!), one of the issues surrounding all the various subcontractors is that while they're all supposed to be using a single design and project management application suite, they all prefer to use their own instead - so when other subcontractors turn up for the next phase of a project area, they have to spend time working out what the heck was done beforehand, as it deviates from the "official" designs...
the only single design they follow is to bribe the Tories and cash in for not delivered materials..... i wonder where you can find the same issue.. i covid not remember it, it must face mask something i now..!
I remember learning about HS2 as a teen in 2013/2014. It was understood to be an over budget mess even then. I learned about it again at university where learned of the failures to perform the required EPAs and failures to compensate or even tell land owners. It was an example of how NOT to plan a large infrastructure project. This is to say I am not surprised at it's current state. They've had 20 years to sort this out.
@@jermainetrainallen6416 Pretty much at point of no return it's too expensive to even cancel better off just getting it done and trains running so it can start paying it's self off.
@@StarJellie I am from Hong Kong and would like to travel to England and try the British trains at the busiest King Cross someday, welcome to HK and try our high speed rail
It’s only in the UK that this is so hard 🤦🏼♀️ Look at their neighbours Germany, France, Spain, Italy (etc) that had high-speed rail for decades (since between 1977 and 1992 in those cases)
One of the problems is that people often build houses on the announcement route, and charge double for the property to HS2. Every time Heathrow Airport announce expansion, new apartments appear from no where. It is ridiculous
Gareth is right, the fact that they thought they could build 2 huge new stations, 2 urban approaches, a depot with trains and a new high-speed railway of 100 miles with all those tunnels, viaducts and interchanges for just £16B was unrealistic.
This piecewise approach is exactly how the Japanese Shinkansen are built. It wasn’t a huge project accomplished all at once. They’ve been gradually extended for almost 60 years and they’re still going. In recent years the Hokuriku line was extended through Toyama and Ishikawa while Tohoku line was extended to Hakodate in Hokkaido. This alone is a massive achievement including the Seikan tunnel under the Tsugaru strait which is wider than the English Channel in an area with the highest snowfall on earth. Just months ago the “Nishi-Kyushu” line opened from Nagasaki. All of these go to the middle of nowhere though. They’re incremental steps on wider plan for nationwide infrastructure. They’re being extended through to Fukui, Sapporo, and connecting to existing high speed lines at Fukuoka’s Hakata station. Combined this will connect cities throughout Japan. That’s not even mentioning the new maglev project.
Also, the oldest section between Osaka and Tokyo was only 100mph average, with the highest speed of 140mph for a long time. Only relatively recently did the section started to see speeds comparable to Europe (highest speed 160mph), and it's still slower than the TGV or the ICE, yet it's still financially viable.
@@HenryMidfields It's true it has been incrementally improved but the Japanese Shinkansen are capable of travelling much faster than they generally do. On the sparsely-populated Tohoku route, they have an operating speed of up to 360 km/h (much faster than Europe). This has been the fastest passenger rail service for years, although some in greater Shanghai are faster nowadays. The Tokaido route is one of the most densely-populated regions in the world. So due to stops being closer together and for noise or safety concerns they operate at lower speeds (285 km/h) than they are capable of. This is one of the motivations for the construction of the alternative Chuo route via deep tunnels through sparsely-populated mountains. It's still a controversial and expensive project given that travel by Shinkansen is comfortable and most passengers are fine with current travel times. The main reason to expand the route is limited passenger capacity (on the world's busiest high speed rail route) rather than demand for faster speeds.
The Nishi Kyushu shinkansen isn't a very good example to use because it was planned in 1972, didn't start being built until 2008, only opened in 2022 and is only half the route planned because one of the prefectures refused planning permission through it's area because it saw no economic benefit and this left the section that was actually built totally isolated from the rest of the shinkansen network and passengers have to change to ordinary express trains in order to complete the rest of the route. There are no plans to complete it in the future either and even if there were it would be at least another two decades at before it would open.
During the time that the UK has been planning less than 400km of High Speed Rail - China has built 40,000km of High Speed Rail connecting every major city in a vast country.
@@B-A-L High Speed Rail infrastructure Workers in China have Health and Safety protections at a higher level than Construction workers in the USA. (death and injury rates are lower than in the USA) and their productivity is so high precisely because of the use of innovative new technologies which require high levels of technical knowledge and competence to operate.
You got Gareth. Thank heavens, you got Gareth, probably the most prominent person who actually makes the *entire* case for HS2. But yeah, the simple truth is that a high speed network should have been started as a rolling programme all the way back in the 80s or 90s: the advantage with doing it now is that it can all be done with modern standards and new technology. This could be the fastest, most advanced conventional rail line in the world - we just need the government to seriously commit to it.
"This could be the fastest, most advanced conventional rail line in the world - we just need the government to seriously commit to it." You made me spit out my coffee. That's a level of ignorance/arrogance that only an Englishman can have. You know that Japan is a place right?
@@sueyourself5413 Whose HSR lines mostly run between 260 and 320km/h, with only a minority going over 300. Yes, I'm aware of Japan's HSR network. At recommended specs, which the government hasn't adopted, HS2 could easily have run at 400km/h, with the line and trains built from the start with 21st century signalling and technology, rather than being retrofitted with it like most existing HSR networks. The fact that you immediately jumped down my throat and called me ignorant, while showing absolutely no knowledge yourself beyond stereotypes, speaks volumes.
@@sueyourself5413 I know nothing about rail engineering but to call someone else arrogant with that comment is hypocrisy at the highest degree. You clearly have no interest in starting a respectful discussion and just want to win an internet argument.
Should have been done years ago. The problems from the corrupt and inept way contracts are bid, awarded and managed. The government goes with the cheapest quote but the businesses quoting know they can under quote and over run by a massive amount with out fear of penalty, its just a cash cow. Also the government award to their cronies, donors as a back hander.
Actually in this case, one of the problems was that the HS2 contracts placed too much overrun cost risk on the contractors (something like 70%-30%), so they increased their prices because more risk for them = higher prices.
The cost per mile comparison is not actually that unfair. For example the Stuttgart-Munich connection cosnists of 155km new track (most of it outside of Stuttgart being dedicated high-speed), 87km tunnels, 57 of those under central Stuttgart and the moutains that surround the city, and a brand new underground railway station in Stuttgart with tracks going perpendicular to the old statio, that is completely replacing its predecessor (one of the busiest stations in Germany). The Berlin-Munich connection that was also on the chart had 230km new dedicated high-speed track built through a region that is topographically closer to Wales than the flatness of most of England, with 27 new tunnels of a total length of 63km and 37 new rail bridges including the two longest in Germany.
Same for Italy. For instance, part of the Turin-Salerno line quoted in this video was where they managed to build the section between Bologna and Florence all underground, through the mountains of Tuscany - all for a lot less and a lot quicker than HS2 is due to take through flat, open countryside. What's our excuse in the UK?
@@samuelollis5355 That's awesome! The excuses I keep hearing why the UK can't do the same mostly revolve around how expensive it is to tunnel under built-up areas and how expensive it is to purchase the land. But other projects on the continent have the exact same issues to deal with and manage for a lot less and much quicker... Brexit likely will have increased costs significantly, but suggesting St. Brexit could ever do anything wrong is still a taboo.
@@kortanioslastofhisname or the classic “but we are more densely populated than other places” forgetting we aren’t even in the top ten countries by density
@@Vonononie Oh, yea that is definitely a classic, has also been used to excuse the terrible state if motorways for decades... but somehow the Netherlands (quite a bit higher population density than England, I'm going by England since the people saying things like that forget Scotland, Wales, and NI exist most of the time) and Belgium (population density of England exluding London) have similar topography to England but manage to build more high-speed rail, at a faster pace, creating a denser network, for much lower cost...
But don't ignore that Stuttgart 21 was announced in 1994, and won't be complete until 2025. It is massively over budget too. The real crying shame of the comparison though. Is that Stuttgart (Germany) is spending all this money on a brand new through station, while we are building brand new dead end stations in our cities!
IF ONLY when rail routes were closed in the 60s there was legislation protecting the track bed routes from development. The Great Central route was superbly engineered as a high speed line from London through the East Midlands to the north and could have formed the mainstay of the route for HS2. Alas the pro-road government of the time were not so far-sighted or selfless in their aims.
The Great Central route was far too curvy. Not a problem for the trains at the time, but not good to run the 300km/h+ high speed trains that HS2 will enable.
I wouldn't worry so much. Every country need new railway corridors, not old ones. Things change a lot in 200 years, and that includes the shape of the track routes.
The UK has at least three high speed giants as neighbours yet failed to learn of all of them. Should have given the project to Spanish hands, we are already over 4000 km of HSR
"over 4000 km of HSR"?? England is a tiny overpopulated country: only 130,279 sq km, 57 million people (434/ sq km). It's the 2nd most densely populated in Europe (Netherlands 508/ sq km). You can't built 4,000 km of HSR in such a populated country like England.
@@yonirapaport330 Yes I know. As I said: England is a tiny overpopulated country and Spain isn't. Another important thing: Spain is a very low-density population country, making HSR building easy (check vid "Why 70% of Spain is Empty." RLL channel) btw Spain's HSR length is not 4,000 miles (6,400 km) but around 3,760 km (As of December 2021)
The California project was initially intented to be Los Angeles to San Francisco; it's now Bakersfield to Merced which is of very limited benefit. HS2 may well end up as the southern end of the Old Oak Wood platform to the northern end of the Old Oak Wood platform.
@@John_259 er no, the Bakersfield to Merced is the first leg that will be opened. Reason why? Cheapest area to build and means it can help experiance aquire for the harder streches for the remainder of the project
@@John_259 The California high speed rail (CAHSR) was, and still is, a connection between LA and SF that passes through the San Joaquin Valley to connect to other cities along the way and to avoid the mountainous coastal area. It is the first section that is being built as it was to easiest to approve. The Merced San Jose section was recently approved. From San Jose it will use the Caltrain tracks (that by 2024 will be electrified, partly funded by CAHSR authority. The current estimation for the valley to SF is 2031 (which is a bit optimistic).
@@AL5520 And even then, it's not a maglev line, only a conventional line, China and Japan were the first countries to build maglev lines, with China being the first to build a maglev line at all, and Japan being the first to build a large-scale maglev line.
I used to sell huge amounts of IT to the governmentt. They go by the cheapest quote. So all of companies that quote go in super low and whack on a heap of stuff once contract is signed.
How come the UK won't look at the Netherlands, Spain or even Japan when designing and running their train services? Those 3 nations managed to do things OK or great and it's not like they're asking for royalties for the ideas.
We actually helped the dutch railways rebuild post WW2. by that we gave them a bunch of electric class 77 locomotives. A successor to Gresleys EM 1 Class 76 that the prototype was used to help repair war damage.
Because UK is actually the best and the three measly countries look at the UK with envy in terms of innovation and democracy. The UK can have the slowest trains in the world and would still come up on top in innovation.
@@davidty2006 we need to move on from the ‘actually in the War Britain did x y z’. Since then the dutch infrastructure has completely changed, generations have now come and gone. The original comment is right, why aren’t we looking at what works for our neighbours instead of regurgitate past British glory. If we keep looking back to the 1940s we will (have) be left behind
The problem with HS2 is that the initial plan was designed more around speed than around the more important issues of capacity and connectivity. It was also designed to go via Heathrow which at some point along the way got scrapped but the rest of the scheme wasn't updates to reflect that. The scope has changed so many times that it's become a complete Frankenstein of a project which no longer meets the aims it was initially meant to, never mind the arguably more important aims that it could have been designed for instead (such as following the M1 corridor and directly connecting more cities, even if journey times would be slightly slower). The important thing with projects like this is to determine what their aim is, design the project for that aim and stick with it.
The thing is that if you made it slower then you would still want to run express trains on the east and west main lines which is currently halving their capacity. By making HS2 fast you can get to Leeds the long way via Birmingham faster than the direct route, so you can take all the express trains off the East and West coast main lines and double their capacity. It is badly managed but doubling the capacity of the east and west coast main lines would have been more expensive and you still wouldn't have a high speed line. The problem is that the government haven't been managing the industry by providing a continuous stream of infrastructure projects. If the industry knew that the government was going to spend 15 billion a year on infrastructure the contracts wouldn't have to pay for building the machinery, teams and capacity in every contract.
@@daveansell1970 You're saying that if you slowed down HS2 you'd still want to run express trains on existing lines but I think that's a bit of a misconception. The purpose of a new line shouldn't be primarily speed but rather connectivity and capacity. More stops would mean that long distance journeys between the ends of the line (i.e. London to Leeds) might be slightly slower but if you have a service that stops at, for example, Milton Keynes, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds you've created a bunch better connected line and cut journey times to and from the other places on route which would otherwise still want the faster service on existing lines.
@@EuroDC1990 you would still need express trains on the existing lines, as otherwise you would slow down the journey from London to Leeds, because going via Birmingham is further. Slower journey times won't help move people from cars and planes.
The original HS2 was supposed to connect to HS1 so that trains using the Channel tunnel could run all the way to the North. Stratford International station was built as the London station for trains going north because those trains would not be terminating at St Pancras.
The 3 reasons explained here answer the question "why HS2 costs so much" but I think the real question should rather be "why was the project inflated this much in price since estimates?". I understand the lack of commitment and supply chain for big projects, but this should've been the baseline even when estimations were made
The expert described the issue, if you listened. This is a pretty standard scope creep situation. HS2 was probably initiated at the cost of the lines, which is the simple part. Once you add the complex parts in cities etc, the prices inflate. The cost to do a full estimate is usually so large that businesses and governments don’t want to commit millions upon millions into an estimate that they don’t end up following through on. I see it all the time, but on a much smaller scale than HS2.
I’m a civil project manager and I work on a lot of infrastructure projects in London, I haven’t worked on HS2 before but I have a lot of friends/colleagues that do. The real reason why HS2 is failing is because the Government wants all of the contractors to produce carbon trackers and are incentivising them to be carbon neutral. All the firms are obviously driven by profit and therefore reach this goal with relative ease but what the Government doesn’t understand is that half the work gets done when we are carbon neutral. Let me explain, a whacker plate is used to compact ground and is basically used for all civil projects, it’s vital for achieving adequate ground conditions. A standard whacker plate is powered by petrol- but there’s an alternative, an electric whacker plate. What they don’t understand is that electric whacker plates take 3 hours to charge and has about 15-20 minutes usage time. On top of this, they are twice as expensive as normal ones and you have to hire in multiple to do the job of one normal whacker plate due to usage times. So although you are saving carbon emissions, you are tripling your costs and you are getting less work done. Due to the fact that the contracts being issued by HS2 are NEC option C contacts, the overall price of the project can change based on certain circumstances. One of the CE clauses (Compensation Event) written in the contracts will 100% be time/money lost due to using electric machinery/plant. This means that every time a contractor thinks they have lost time or money due to using electric machinery to try and be carbon neutral, they will apply for a CE which the Government will be forced to accept because 9 times out of 10 they are true. The technology simply isn’t there to be carbon neutral. If Sunak wants to reign this project in he needs to scrap the idea of being carbon neutral and change all contracts on HS2 to NEC option A contracts, which will force all contractors to stick to delivering the project for the price they stated. Stop trying to be clever and just do it the way we know how to do it.
Eh. Sure the Tories are corrupt but infrastructure going over budget with or without corruption is hardly unheard of. Especially in a nation where you completely lack expertise with such projects.
From what I've seen, 70% of the budget for HS2 is going on just getting the line those couple of dozen miles out of the Home Counties. Which explains why they've axed the important Leeds section of the route and barely saved any cash from doing so (but these are Tories and we're talking about the north so, y'know... fcuk northerners). It's amazing how much cheaper it gets once the line enters the Midlands where prices are depressed, The NIMBY armies are fewer and not as many vote Tory.
HS1 is the Eurostar track. It was delivered much later than the French section. Because it was so slow it compromised the efficiency of the whole trip - 2.5 hours from London to Paris or Brussels. Part of the purpose of HS2 was to improve links between the North of England and Paris and beyond. Euston station, where HS2 terminates is a short walk from ST Pancras International. Obvioulsy brexthick compromised the whole project. Passport controls have reduced the number of Eurostar trains by 30% due to the amount of time it takes to get through passport control now that UK citizens no longer have freedom of movement.
@@freddie_w Where did you get the idea of HS2 connecting to HS1, I live in Birmingham and have followed the HS2 project from it's start of building and in the local News there was never any mention of this idea, just some ones weared thoughts as there is no reason that HS2 a domestic high speed line to relieve traffic on the WCML and Birmingham New Street to London Euston would never require to connect to HS1 and the continent as there would be no custom for it.
@@freddie_w Because of these very simple reasons; 1/ Both Birmingham and Manchester have airports close to their respective City Centers. 2/ From both Airports there are cheap flights to Europe by carriers such as Easy Jet , Ryan Air, Lufthansa, British Airway's and Air France; 3/ It is quicker by Air from these places and cheaper to places such as Paris than Rail from Birmingham and Manchester; 4/ By Rail even from Birmingham the journey to London would take 50 mis plus waiting for said train, another hour to cross London at a sedate speed of about 40 mph and then about 2 hours on the HS1 line; 5/ At least Birmingham Airport has a station on the HS2 line; 6/ Customs Checks; 7/ HS2 has always been a domestic hispeed line designed to speed up services from Birmingham, Scotland and the North West to relieve rail congestion on the Existing WCML and Birmingham New Street so relieving the existing lines that can not be upgraded to carry more freight and passenger services to towns and Cities not on the HS2 line 8/ The cost o a rail ticket from Birmingham and Manchester by rail to Paris would out way the coat of a cheap air fare; 9/ And lastly why would people want to sit cramped up on a train for 4 to 5 hours from Birmingham to Paris when they could do the same trip by air for about 1 hour; So basically Freddie that is the reason, plus the fact that Domestic Intercity trains and European train are not compatible with their width in coach bodies, domestic British trains are built to fit the slimmer British Loading Gauge where as European trains are designed to the European UIC or Berne Gauge where the coach bodies are wider so would not fit through our domestic high level platforms.
The HS program is 30yrs of hold-off on those regional railway-capacity works, we'll chuck it into the HS2 engineering. This is why it seems to radical, its 30yrs worth of cut a tree here, build a bridge there, instead of dribbling it out over the years. This is why it is so very expensive. There is now little else to cut out, except the additional commuter works that made it worthwhile.
Oh no, the really expensive rail project is now “too expensive”as it reaches the North of England. What a surprise! Who could have written that narrative AGAIN!
The North doesn’t need a shitty high speed train to London, it needs the entire rail network reworked. HS2 is just another way for the government to take jobs away from the North and increase disparity
I visited many hs2 site and the amount of money being waisted is amazing one case 50 tons of wood chipping dumped in to the ground and covered over , lines of brand new construction equipment sat on site not being used for months on end .
It's not really a particularly fair comparison to frame things in this manner, the UK has a very dense rail network going through some of the most densely populated places in Europe and it is possible to reach just about anywhere in the country within the space of about 5 hours requiring there arent any delays, most intercity journeys being about 2 or under. For most of these journeys speeds are quite high, but not to the extent that they are classified as officially high speed, but they are sufficient for everyday usage, e.g. I make a semi-regular commute during some week days from an apartment in London to an office in Cardiff, in total, Tube connections included the whole journey only takes about 2.5 hours which is quite reasonable for such a distance with all the changes involved. The speeds in the UK are appropriate given the urban geography, distribution of the population and size of the country as a whole. It makes much more sense for example for Spain to have an extensive HS network given where its cities are and how much of the population is situated in a string of very dense cities surrounded by very sparse countryside. HS2 (a bad name), while being high speed wont actually improve arrival times that much, for most journeys it will only shave off about 20 to 30 minutes, what it is actually intended as is as a capacity multiplier, by removing faster trains from English mainlines, that frees up an exponential amount of capacity and reliability for the utilisation of denser local, regional and freight services of the core of the UK rail network. A more appropriate name for the scheme would have been the translation of Shinkansen - New Main Trunk Line which is what it actually is in practice, the fact it is 'high speed' is mostly just for the purposes of marketing.
@@neodym5809 It does, but once again, if you look at the geography Japan has more closely, you will still find that Japanese geography favours HSR better than in the UK. Japan consists of a series of very densly populated flat coastal plains situated more or less along a straight line from one side of the country to the other with each city having a population between 3 and 10 times the size of the average British one, giving them a bigger market to fund these schemes. These are separated by nearly empty forested mountain ranges that separate the plains, this makes it very economically sensible to connect them using a series of strategically placed mountain tunnels. British cities in comparison are dense but in an odd sprawling manner, in essence the UK is like a very dense version of American suburbia. Houses sprawl out for miles in a spiderweb like network of cul-de-sacs etc, building between all of these obstacles is exceptionally expensive, and its cities tend to be built in mildly hilly lowlands not completely flat plains. The population is also not spread along a linear axis making train lines more difficult to justify because the percentage of the population that will benefit from them is much less comparatively. So oddly, most of the UK's new rail lines will have to be built in cuttings going through mild hills, whilst the shinkansen it built more or less like a traditional rail line on an elevated linear mound connected by a series of very impressive tunnels. So effectively the UK has density, but in the most unhelpful way possible whilst Japan, although mountainous and prone to disaster has a very dense population distribution that makes HSR still very expensive but much more easily justifiable.
This project is absolutely needed to add capacity to the network. Part of the reason for cost increase has been pandering to NIMBYism (with many more expensive tunnels than needed) and anti-rail/public transport bias from people who would never be bothered if the same amount was spent on roads. Get it finished already! A rolling programme of rail development and electrification is needed.
This will most definitely get lost in the comments and a bit of a "Source: Trust me bro". But I have a friend that's a mechanic fixing a lot of the vehicles involved in the project. He's on mega money for doing very little. He's a talented young man that can work very hard and they've just not utilising him at all. He was telling me there were three bolts that needed tightening and he wasn't allowed to touch them because he would lose his job. Another guy on mega money drove 2 hours to tighten these three bolts and then drove home and made thousands in the process. Too much paperwork and no sense. "It's a complete con" is his exact words.
Getting Gareth Dennis on this was a baller move - he is the most outspoken and well-spoken thinker on HS2 there is. Minor technicality - under the original plans, the eastern leg would call at an all new station called East Midlands Hub (midway between Nottingham and Derby). In the cut back plans, East Midlands Hub was done away with and HS2 trains are now proposed to call at the existing East Midlands Parkway station instead.
Another reason why it's so overbudget (which no one's really talking about in the press) is that if you let them use a bit of your land for the project, they will actually do some maintenance work for you - free of charge. E.g. if you've got a fence you want to install/upgrade or a carpark you want to build/re-tarmac they'll do it for free as compensation for going through your land to build the railway and or other bits of necessary infrastructure for the projects
Three consultancies ARUP, Atkins and Mott McDonald have concluded that a viable upgrade of the ECML is possible, near equalling HS2 journey times. This will provide a 30% increase in capacity and give speed improvements for York and Newcastle at considerably less cost. They don't preclude further improvements such as a new station in Leeds, Sheffield to Leeds 'Northern Powerhouse Rail', the Nottingham to Newark HS2 ECML bypass/link. Some proposed improvements are: *1)* Maximum line speed increase from 125mph to 140mph *2)* Welwyn capacity upgrade *3)* Huntingdon - Woodwalton 4-tracking *4)* Grantham Performance Improvement *5)* Newark Flat Junction Grade Separation *6)* Doncaster freight avoidance *7)* York - Skelton 3rd line *8)* Darlington additional platforms Bypasses are needed around York and Morpeth. Morpeth is a notorious death spot and _needs_ to be done.
As a journalist working overseas, I was one of the few lucky ones to board the maglev between Tokyo and Nagoya. It's quiet and stable, and when I closed my eyes, I really could forget that I was moving at 500km per hour.
When you look at some of the original plans for HS1+2 you can make yourself pretty miserable. There were initially plans for eurostar trains to have multiple terminus stations in different parts of the UK, so you'd be able to do things like sleeper services from Paris to Edinburgh, or Manchester to Brussels, which could have greatly increased tourism and business prospects outside of London. It seems in the UK that any time there's a good infrastructure project that would benefit other parts of the country, it gets pared back until it barely delivers on its initial aims and becomes even more unpopular because of how useless it is.
The elephant in the room when it comes to international railway services from the North of England to France and beyond is passport control arrangements. Currently all E* stations in Kent are closed, as is Lille Europe, because during the pandemic E* could not remain afloat while still paying the British and French governments for border control. The UK and French authorities have a complicated reciprocal arrangement whereby a train must be cleared for international travel at the point of departure, including all bags scanned. Passport checks on board are not acceptable. Since the number of passengers likely to make a HS2->HS1 journey is only enough to fill 1 or 2 trains as evidenced by the current number of flights from Manchester to Paris, and remembering that you can't use an international train for domestic services, you would be looking at staffing a brand new UK border for a mere hour per day. If the passengers have to pick up the bill for that (which they do) on top of the new infrastructure, there's no possible way that it can be competitive with the flight on price, and thus the business case falls apart. The only good and useful solution is simply to offer through ticketing on HS2 and Eurostar on day trains, or on an early morning E* after a sleeper and vice versa.
@asdaneedsfunds passport control might not be so much of an issue if the UK were to rejoin the EU and just looking at data of Paris to Manchester flights does not directly translate into passenger numbers for trains. For example if an E* train had multiple stops. It could also be run like the Caledonian Sleeper where it could be divided into sections that went to different destinations.
@@asdaneedsfunds Also one can consider that England outside of London is not that attractive for French tourists whereas Paris will always remain a holliday destination for Brits wherever they live in the UK. So the British government has no special economical interest in facilitating the export of its national population in hords of tourists abroad.
That's what happens when your interviewee is a nerd who was already loaded up with knowledge, before working hard on communication skills and honing a blisteringly honest message.
Good comment about the fact that in the UK we do nothing for decades then dream up a huge infrastructure project which we are not geared up to do. In Germany, they have a rolling list of infrastructure projects so that companies know how to do them and there is a large enough body of trained people to do the projects.
You don't have the right supply chain, so any major infrastructure project's budget spirals out of control, so the government doesn't have the political capital for another major infrastructure project, so the supply chain is redirected or dismantled, repeat.
This is a consistent problem, e.g. the crossrail systems were intended to follow one after another, so that the experience and supply chains would compound and entrench themselves making it theoretically exponentially cheaper to construct lines in the future. For example the system was designed to have a one size fits all station design with similar design language throughout in order to improve replicability in the future. What is happening instead is that they finished Crossrail overbudget and that has dampened moods to try again with crossrail 2 which has largely been mothballed for the time being. If we wait say 5 years to start again, those logistical and educational networks will atrophy and we will have to learn all over again how to build a regional underground line, rehire civil engineers who may have moved into a new line of work etc. The key with these big projects is to have a consistent pipeline for them, our habit of building big projects one decade and then not doing anything for another is incredibly inefficient and needs to be phased out as a development model.
@@hpsauce1078 Exactly. No one is gonna wait. A more dramatic example is what happened between WW1 and WW2. The arms industry famously started making bicycles and consumer goods; you don't revert that overnight.
It’s good to have a genuine expert in public sector projects and public infrastructure, his expertise gels completely with my experience and it’s really good to see the facts shown publicly.
Find it sad to see the actual part of HS2 that needed it the most (connections to Leeds/surrounding areas) were binned. Seems that no engineering project in the UK can either run within budget or time scales. The building of Wembley stadium is another immediate structural project that was both hideously expensive and slow to construct. Guess that is the state of the UK in the 21st Century.
@@davidty2006 It cost twice, three times the budget £700bn in early/mid 2000s is insanely expensive) and was 2 years (I think) late in completion. Plus within 15 years it's not even the best stadium in London anymore.
Why is the scrapped HS2 route to Leeds and the surrounding area needed the most, the areas that need HS2 the most are Birmingham because of the fact Birmingham New Street is getting grid locked and strangled by the amount of trains using it which is affecting both the Birmingham to London services and also other service through New Street to the rest of the Country, it is far quicker via the ECML and MML than travelling from Leeds to Birmingham and then South to London.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 Guess you've never had the experience of travelling in/around Leeds/surrounding areas then. Leed to Sheffield is 29 miles and takes between 55mins and 1hr 20m. Remember, Leeds is the 3rd most populous city in the UK. It shouldn't be serviced so poorly, with such slow train routes.
They should have started building from Leeds and go downwards. That way, the North would have had some rail improvements and could not have been cancelled. Let's be honest, too much has been spent on London (CrossRail), other cities need improvements before London get more.
AsHS" is a Birmingham based project with HS2 headquarters in Birmingham that is why the majority of HS2 work starts in Birmingham and working North to Stafford and South to London with building work working from London North to meet up with work in the Midlands
@@simonn2045 The need for extra railway capacity is greater in the south, so makes more sense to start it there. As Gareth explained, though, smaller projects getting HS rail further north would make sense from a cost perspective.
@@simonn2045 Because the current routes above Leeds are not at capacity and it make sense building the routes that are at capacity first and offer the biggest benefit. Starting in London is the right choice for the project as the most benefits would be achieved more quickly starting from the south just due to choke points and capacity.
My thoughts on Gareth's the thoughts: _1) Too big a project makes for too big a sticker price_ If we made 10 smaller projects under a strategy, would the total cost be more, the same or less than £100bn? Are there efficiency gains doing it well at once. For instance, do you have to hire the same solicitors 10 times instead of just once? This is unclear. Are they just hiding the cost by breaking it up? Will many smaller projects leave the supply chain in thought (3) in a better place? _2) Not enough commitment from central government._ I don't understand why not commitment will make it cheaper, this is not explained. It's it just another thing that makes (3) better? Or do regular government contracts make it so more construction SMEs and, consequently, large construction enterprises take root because there is more money and not regular money to be made? _3) Boom & Bust for enterprise's causes fragmentation in the construction company and supply chain companies._ Improving (1) & (2) will improve the supply chain situation. However we should take the 20% hit on cost of it means preserving usage of British SMEs (Small to Medium Enterprises) rather than using foreign construction mega corporations. This is a good deal and keeps that 100bn in our economy. People always forget what happens to the money, that somehow it magically poofs into the railway. The SMEs pay themselves with it, and those people then spend that money in the British economy. This is a good thing. If you hire a multinational megacorp it will be foreign, likely French, German or Chinese and now that 100bn has left the country.
In addition, it's classed as an "England and Wales" project, despite not going into Cymru itself, and thus Cymru misses out on some additional funding given to Scotland and N.I. Ychafi
It'll probably never happen, but hopefully Wales can be an independent country one day and be able to preserve/put their own culture ahead of the colonisers.
@@Devilishlybenevolent As with the result of the UK Supreme court over Scottish Independence ruling, the answer is a categorically NO until the UK Government says YES.
They should have designed it to flow in with HS1 and the Channel tunnel to allow Eurostar and International trains to go straight into regional UK. But no, it wasn't about connecting Europe to UK. It was all about connecting Europe to more specifically, London.
@@electro_sykesFree movement was when you could work and live in any EU country without a visa. You have no right to do that now, so free movement is about legal immigrants
Brilliant. Well written. As a experienced engineer the point I would make is we have a systematic problem with governance and planning in UK. So as Gareth said any infra delivery in UK suffers these problems so alternatives have exactly the same issues. The main point is we need governments who can plan long term for anything to get better and in UK that is totally absent at the moment
As a QS and construction project manager for many years I totally agree. The government procurement process is flawed, resulting in problems from the start. They also start works before the design is completed for political reasons, this causes changes to work already carried out, increasing costs. They deliberately fudge the budgets so it gets approval. As was stated in the video they don’t carry out the works in sensible separate sections. They use very poor contract / tendering systems that allow for second stage cost increases. Basically everything they do is doomed to fail both in time and budget.
I think it's worth mentioning that HS2 isn't just about commuting and the movement of people - it's also about getting freight off the roads and transporting it more efficiently between the two places where it's used most. Hauling as a method of bulk movement is pretty inefficient , so this does quite a lot for cleaning up our air and easing the burden on roads.
The problem is an imprecise primary valuation, that now increases due to discoveries of hurdles along the project's execution. Wages and land purchases are also hefty expenditures
Whenever I hear about something like that I remember that Brooklyn Bridge took way more money and way more time to built than New York expected, yet no one cares about it now. One of the biggest corruption scandals in early-2010s Russia was the fact that Gazprom was builting the biggest football stadium in St. Petersburg way too long and way too expensive (at some point the builders even claimed the roof was destroyed by birds and they had to build a new one). I've been to the stadium in 2019 - and it's just a good football stadium, no one remembers those scandals. If it's useful, safe and good enough, people will use it and no one will care. Obviously, it would be better to build stuff exactly according to a project - fast and cheap, but no one lives in a perfect world. Moreover, people in the US and the UK live in a world where airlines lobbying in government and media is way too influential and that's a problem when it comes to building railways.
I can just testimony in this. In Switzerland, in Japan, in Germany, in the USA, every rail project overshoot it's estimation. Always. I don't know why, but my theory is, that for the projects to be accepted, the initiator always try to sell it cheap to the public, before dealing with the realities midway.
Remember when intercity train was launched that could do120 mph .it was really exciting to travel on the intercity because it was futuristic compared to the old trains.
It will make no difference which company operates HS2, if the government wants the passenger to cover the cost of this project, plus the operating cost, as they do now, the tickets will be impossibly expensive.
UK: "We have low energy of commitment of big infrastructure projects, that's why we fail". Europe: "Don't you still not understand why we DIVIDE big infrastructure projects into SMALLER broken bits!" It's just common sense, smaller projects are relatively easier to complete, and once they get done you are naturally motivated into doing the next smaller phases. Having a massive project is a daunting task, it always seems impossible to complete, moreover once a massive project gets done all you tend to experience is fatigue due to the endless time and stress it took to finish it!
Don't forget the demotivation that comes when you eventually have no choice but to let go of some original plans of a huge project because you finally get to realize that they are just not viable!
It is also extra important with rail infrastructure, where you basically want to always work on the tracks. Be it updating/upgrading old track or laying new track, since a longer break between building it generally leads to those techniques not being maintained and resulting in a higher building cost when stuff has to be rediscovered. This is likely one of the main reasons why high speed rail in other european countries has such low cost per track mile/kilometer.
Lmao. Just 500 km of High Speed Rail is so big for UK that you need to "divide it" into stages? No. These are just excuses. Look at the similar project in India. 500 km of HSR, all elevated, Japanese tech in signalling and rolling stock, all for $14 Billion that appreciated to $21 Billion after land acquisition. Despite political wrangling and attempts at stalling by a rival political party.
You called out project management but failed to call out project sponsorship failures which is arguably a larger issue with big projects like this. If there is significant pressure from sponsors to be as fast and cheap as possible at the proposal phase you usually see quality and risk mitigation measures getting cut out (as anyone working projects will know you can't have all 3). Then when the project runs into issues there is no capacity to absorb them and it becomes over budget and behind schedule. Really a proposal should be pitched at mid-point costs and schedules then there is enough manoeuvring room to manage the project and expectations are set at a more realistic point so the inevitable issues that arise it doesn't become a headline.
HS2 has had a high environmental impact. It will be expensive to use. Non mainline stations desperate need for modernisation. I'm sure some are making £££££ from this project.
I tell you why. Because in England every worker has a manager, and that manager have a manager, and then that manager again have a manager and so on. If a manager doesnt have an answer then its "heath and safety reasons". If a manager dont want to give an answer then its "personal data".
I've heard jibes about Royal Navy having more admirals than ships, but you want to tell me that is not the case for your navy alone but your entire country? No wonder things are in such bad shape.
Ironically, Berlin's new airport suffered from fragmented work too. Lots of smaller contracts, impossible to manage and oversee leading to a bunch of issue, so much that they actually couldn't turn off the airport; nobody knew where to turn it off electricity entirely.
At this point I think the Tories want the project to fail so they have an excuse not to put money into big public projects anymore and give it to themselves instead
they'll happily slap it all into a new motorway proberbly....
seems like they want to smear transit projects.
wasn't Boris supporting this project strongly?
they want a project to fail on their government, yeah, makes sense, what every government wants, bad publicity and mega projects failing.
@ he ”was” but I believe it was to help himself get re-elected in 2024 if he stayed prime minister
@@Fuzzy9001 well, but he did, what ever is the reason, he understood that the success of the project was also his own success. I am just trying to make the poing that by being better critics we can actually force to get better results. If anything I would critizize that the tories didnt start an HS3 by now after a long term in goverment.
The Japanese started using the bullet trains back in 1964. We got the HST Intercity 125 in 1975 as a stop gap while we made the APT tilting train, some of those stop gap trains are still in use almost 50yrs later. 60yrs after the Japanese and we're only got 68 miles of high speed rail in HS1. Its pathetic how little our transport system has changed, as we cling onto short term cost saving ideas which cost us far more in the future
@@crapmalls
You OK?
The Japanese built 200? Mile of motorway in 6 weeks after fukushima.
What "cost savings"? Paying 4x the actual price...
@@davidwebb4904
4x= on budget🤷♂️
"we're only got 68 miles of high speed rail in HS1. ".. HS1 line built in 1998 was just a French LGV high-speed line and first Eurostar trains were based on TGV trains. In the 90s UK had zero knowledge in building real HS lines (speed > 280-300 kph)
It doesn't matter if it is overbudget. At least less so than the road building projects that we have that are currently way overbudget yet never get criticised for it. Only when its public transit is money a problem.
Idk any going on in the UK but think adding an extra lane to the A1 is already long past budget and schedule.
Lol so true Highways is worse than rail in the UK in managing budgets.
Every single government budget is always way over the planned expenditure. Are those who plan these projects knowledgeable enough to get out of bed? A budget has to take all possibilities into consideration, but all projects seem to miss something. Of course they have unlimited resources as the tories have proven.
The Government will abandon it and spend even more cash turning it into a motorway. Then all the objectors to 'occasional trains on a dark railway' will be subjected to a continuous roar form a brightly lit super-highway.
@@verybiased907 not true A46 dualing from Widmerpool to Newark, started 2008/2009 finished on time and on budget, was actually way ahead at one point, but lots of snow followed by rain slowed them down.
I am Japanese and live in an area that does not benefit from the Shinkansen. It seems that the Shinkansen will finally be built in 10 years to my city, but I really wanted it to be built 40 years ago. During those 40 years, the economic disparity with other regions widened, young people fled to Tokyo and other places, and lost its vitality. Making HS2 is not wrong. The mistake is that while France and Germany were laying the groundwork for high-speed rail, the UK neglected to do so.
150 billion GBP to build it and Japan has magLev for a fraction. Thats the problem for us. Its a ripoff. I think we'll all be buzzing around in oversized drones soon anyway.
@@joecater894Could you elaborate on what you mean with 'oversized drones'?
I work on HS2 at the moment. I think one of the biggest issues is that everything has been sucontracted out and as little as possible is being done in house. In theory thats more efficient but its a nightmare and costs increase a lot more when theres inevitable changes. It makes way more sense to me to keep as much of it as possible in house to develop the knowledge so you can continue building in the future
But ther is no I house building in the Construction Industry as everything is Sub contracted out to Sub Contractors. The HS2 Contracts are all let on an actual cost basis. They root of the problem lies in an insufficient costplan put in place in 2010. Then to add to the oroblem no inflstion was added. Then years later the contracts are designed and tendered on an actual cost basis reflecting the individual calendar programme dates the contracts are built to. This is how all government funded projects are let so the original budget can never be enough unless there is no inflation.
What does in-house mean in this case?
@trevorwilliams632 utter nonsense. Transport projects always include the risk adjusted capital cost, inflation adjustment, and optimism bias. The guidance for this is available online for all to see in TAG and the Green Book.
They'll pay multiple companies because it helps get the money back out into the public quickly rather than giving it all one greedy ceo
1: Gross incompetence.
2: Corruption.
= Tories
3. Tory austerity.
ANOTHER GREAT COCK UP !
@@johnsmith-rs2vk fukup
Ukraine PFP can't really talk about corruption
Small correction: HS1 doesn’t go to Dover. For domestic traffic the HS1 only goes from St Pancras to Ashford, the trains then swap to the usual rails and are limited to the usual speeds. The international HS goes from St Pancras to Folkestone where it goes into the tunnel
that is EUROstar...its a French company using French locomotives and trains....
@@Arltratlo the domestic service is run by Southeastern Trains (which is indirectly owned by the UK government) using Javelin trains built by Hitachi, a Japanese company. The international service is run by Eurostar which is owned by French, Belgium, and Canadian companies. The actual high speed rails are owned by a subsidiary of the UK government but has been leased to Canadian investment entities.
Yes it’s called Eurostar as it’s in Europe, just like the two countries it connects
@@Arltratlo HS1 is practically a French high speed railway with French signalling and French speed limits
@@Arltratlo Important to know, there are several locomotives in use designed by both the French and the British. The operating company is operated from London but is owned by a multitude of other businesses in France/US/Belgium/UK.
The HS1 network extends to the tunnel (which connects France and England) and is used by both international services (eurostar) and domestic services (South Eastern Railways (Useless piece of sh**)). For domestic services (South Eastern), it runs at full operating speed from St Pancras to Ashford International, moving to the old lines with an operating speed of ~80mph.
@@hebikotei9578 i am living in a small town in the nowhere of north Germany, not even 1km away from me is a HSR with speeds up to 280kph and its here for nearly 30 years... looks like the Brexshit done nothing positive to you, but how do i know, i am not traveling to the UK anymore and not buying anything from it...
have fun with the French!
As a rail engineering student in the US, it's amazing to see how common the mistakes listed in thus video are. The high speed rail project in California faced a lot of similar challenges with mismanagement and trying to tackle too large of a project. I'm not sure if this was an issue with HS2, but in California there was a crippling reliance on expensive consultants for project management, with an incredibly understaffed internal team.
Sounds like an incentive misalignment. Politicians don't get rewarded for doing the boring but practical extended rollout. Instead they get incentivized to go with huge showpieces.
The problem with HS2 is costs have gone through the roof. It was initially projected to cost £30bn but now is expected to cost £100bn because they dramatically underestimated the cost of buying property that was blocking the route. The London to Birmingham route is designed to run at speeds of 250mph so the line had to be so straight and has to run through a lot of properties. So much money could’ve been saved had it run alongside the M40 motorway. French and Italian high speed rail is cheaper because the lines run alongside their highways.
@@chrisj9700 I'd doubt 250mph trains will even run simply because it's currently non standard.
Probs will be closer to 200mph or 320km/h (Could just brand it as IC 325 to stay consistant with express branding)
Not to mention all the hassles over right-of-way. The U.S. has not been a train-oriented country since the end of WWII.
@@davidty2006 Building a track now that is capable of 250mph but having trains run "only" 200mph is much more efficient and cheaper than having to upgrade all of that track once trains are capable of those speeds
Strange how the UK is unable to build even 1 high speed line, while a country like Spain, much sneered at in certain parts of the UK, has an eleborate network linking it to other parts of the EU.
It's not strange at all. I'd bet anything that a lot of that money went into tory pockets.
Spain is a lot bigger and sparsely populated compared to the UK. It's a lot easy to build train on dry planes than it is to build having to buy out thousands of properties
We're not in the e.uu.
Spain is bigger and requirs more trains.
@@mrcaboosevg6089 dry planes? Brother have u seen northern spain? Have u seen Spain in general ? A lot of mountains had to be tunneled and land bought , we have more mountains in one community that u have in the whole islands ,so obviously someone pocketed that money buddy , instead of coping so hard ask for the money back
@@richardgallagher4880 you were in the EU when you started it.
The Netherlands has high-speed rail. Belgium has. So nice try but no cigar
HS2 has been done in a pretty incompetent manner, but future generations will look at it as a key part of the rail network in the UK. They will wonder how we coped without it. It is coming at a huge cost at a time that is difficult economically, but prices will only rise, so the sooner, the better for this sort of project.
Considering inflation rn yes cost will only go up.
And only way to get it somewhat down again is to keep building more.
They'll wonder how we coped with already expansive train network, with HS2 only improving trains times by 20 ish minutes, while costing the tax payer and our natural eco system massively.
@@MEHOLE Read again. Main reason to build HS2 is lack of capacity, not shortening the travel journey. There are more passengers than public transit allows - HS2 is a solution. How does it affect natural eco-system? Architects decided to build long tunnels under the forests to preserve the nature. UK needs HS2.
@MEHOLE it's not just about speed, it's about capacity. Not to mention it's being done with environmental sustainability at the forefront
@@MEHOLE i think Britons would rather have affordable rail than faster service
You cannot IMAGINE the joy when you said the expert was the absolute mad lad Gareth Dennis!
I love that you brought an expert in to bring some insight, it really added to the quality of this video for me.
Gareth Dennis is no expert. More HS2 plant.
It's embarrassing that we're seemingly so incompetent at almost anything rail related. Although, at this stage with the infrastructure we've developed to build HS2 and the amount already spent, it'd be ridiculous to scrap it.
BREL could of had it done by now!
If they could build a roller coaster in their free time a HSR is nothing.
It's embarrassing that we're seemingly so incompetent at almost anything.
It can be argued that these kind of projects are also jobs programs. The American's Artemis program comes to mind: woefully over budget but it keeps tens of thousands employed and results in stimulation to the economy. The danger of this is that most government money for these projects falls into the hands of only a few executives, thereby negating trickle down effects.
To the contrary - those executives had to hire maids, gardeners, and pool boys for their second mansions.
Whoever mismanaged it should be locked up in jail.
It's an aversion to risk, which steadily increased over the past 20 years that I was involved in major railway projects. The design phase for each project gets longer and longer and hence more distant from the original requirements. Also, some parts have to be designed and built together, eg the major stations and approach routes. You can't plan a high-speed route into Euston if you have no idea on the precise alignment of the platform you are aiming to join up to. (The last carriage is designed to leave the platform at 70mph so a smooth alignment is a major requirement.
I have many stations in many play throughs of Open Transport Tycoon which prove you wrong. The jankiest jank is absolutely fine, never a passenger complaint!
/s 😼
Nothing technical there, many countries have done that very easily. The problem comes from Westminster, in not having good plans and advisors before hand. Spending years as a talking shop (like Wembley Stadium -10 years chat, then expect it built in two!) There are three HS trains in Europe,AVE,TGV and FRECCLAROSSAA 1000. all have an average 198mph and have been doing it for years! The UK doesn't even know what a Maglev train is!! Years behind, when once we were first! HS2 is behind the curve, the TGV has its boggies under the ends of two carriages, using the electric motors as brakes and broke the world record ( 574KM/H 372MPH) Sept 2009- so there are NO excuses, we are 14 years behind the French and its not even running! Couldn't organise a p...u. in a brewery
What was meant in the video is that there is a long running strategy so you know what you'll eventually end up with but you build it out bit by bit
How much do you think that requirement is worth? Lets say they can build the station now for 10 million, and you will have to wait till last carriage is out of station before you can accelerate full speed. Or they can align it all and you can accelerate from standing still? How much time would that save? are we talking an extra 100 million? 200?
It's amazing that there's so much opposition and getting this through has been so difficult. Britain is the ideal place for high speed rail, it's small, it's very densely populated and it's rich; connecting the entire country through high speed rail should be a no brainer in Britain.
You guys need me make longer videos. This is one story that really needs to have more time, to explain the whole story.
It's "TLDR" for a good reason.
Agreed, really wanted hear something in depth on the opposition e.g. the NIMBYs causing delays to sections of the line and even parts of the line to change route.
The brevity is the point of this channel. There are other videos giving in-depth analysis of HS2
They do make longer ones but those are on Nebula.
@@craftinteemo7055 Let them stay elsewhere, I'm here for a brief fact-checked coverage. It's just enough for a general understanding of the issue and provides a vector for further in-depth research for those who are interested.
Its over budged, not failing.
Japanese shinkansen is the best hsr system in the world and was also 2 or 3 times over budged
The cut backs on this are not helping the project one bit.
atleast Shinkansen was built in full.
But then the pride of China HSR in 2010
Its behind schedule and 4 times over budget
3 times over budget is on budget.
but it was build by Japanese, this people know what they doing... in the UK nobody knows what to do and that starts on the government level!
This is a great video, far too often you see people talking about HS2 who have no idea what it actually means, but you went to the effort of researching and calling in experts. It shows!
Love your videos!
Too true right? The normally reliable "The Bunker" podcast just did an entire episode about HS2 without explaining what the project is for, or just asserting - without challenge - that nobody knew what it was for.
IIRC (I wish I could find the source!), one of the issues surrounding all the various subcontractors is that while they're all supposed to be using a single design and project management application suite, they all prefer to use their own instead - so when other subcontractors turn up for the next phase of a project area, they have to spend time working out what the heck was done beforehand, as it deviates from the "official" designs...
the only single design they follow is to bribe the Tories and cash in for not delivered materials.....
i wonder where you can find the same issue.. i covid not remember it, it must face mask something i now..!
I remember learning about HS2 as a teen in 2013/2014. It was understood to be an over budget mess even then. I learned about it again at university where learned of the failures to perform the required EPAs and failures to compensate or even tell land owners. It was an example of how NOT to plan a large infrastructure project. This is to say I am not surprised at it's current state. They've had 20 years to sort this out.
To clarify I am pro high speed rail. It's just been done extremely poorly.
True but at least construction is underway on Phase One now
@@jermainetrainallen6416 Pretty much at point of no return it's too expensive to even cancel better off just getting it done and trains running so it can start paying it's self off.
@@davidty2006 Exactly
@@StarJellie I am from Hong Kong and would like to travel to England and try the British trains at the busiest King Cross someday,
welcome to HK and try our high speed rail
I've been on Crossrail project myself (Bond Street Station Elizabeth line), loved coming to work every day 6 days a week for 2 years.
Loved it!.
It’s only in the UK that this is so hard 🤦🏼♀️ Look at their neighbours Germany, France, Spain, Italy (etc) that had high-speed rail for decades (since between 1977 and 1992 in those cases)
One of the problems is that people often build houses on the announcement route, and charge double for the property to HS2.
Every time Heathrow Airport announce expansion, new apartments appear from no where. It is ridiculous
Gareth is right, the fact that they thought they could build 2 huge new stations, 2 urban approaches, a depot with trains and a new high-speed railway of 100 miles with all those tunnels, viaducts and interchanges for just £16B was unrealistic.
"We're gonna talk to an expert on the matter" _cuts to Boris Johnson_
That’s some pretty brilliant editing right there
Yea, that struck me, too. Quite the mini chortle.
This piecewise approach is exactly how the Japanese Shinkansen are built. It wasn’t a huge project accomplished all at once. They’ve been gradually extended for almost 60 years and they’re still going. In recent years the Hokuriku line was extended through Toyama and Ishikawa while Tohoku line was extended to Hakodate in Hokkaido. This alone is a massive achievement including the Seikan tunnel under the Tsugaru strait which is wider than the English Channel in an area with the highest snowfall on earth. Just months ago the “Nishi-Kyushu” line opened from Nagasaki. All of these go to the middle of nowhere though. They’re incremental steps on wider plan for nationwide infrastructure. They’re being extended through to Fukui, Sapporo, and connecting to existing high speed lines at Fukuoka’s Hakata station. Combined this will connect cities throughout Japan. That’s not even mentioning the new maglev project.
Also, the oldest section between Osaka and Tokyo was only 100mph average, with the highest speed of 140mph for a long time. Only relatively recently did the section started to see speeds comparable to Europe (highest speed 160mph), and it's still slower than the TGV or the ICE, yet it's still financially viable.
@@HenryMidfields It's true it has been incrementally improved but the Japanese Shinkansen are capable of travelling much faster than they generally do. On the sparsely-populated Tohoku route, they have an operating speed of up to 360 km/h (much faster than Europe). This has been the fastest passenger rail service for years, although some in greater Shanghai are faster nowadays.
The Tokaido route is one of the most densely-populated regions in the world. So due to stops being closer together and for noise or safety concerns they operate at lower speeds (285 km/h) than they are capable of.
This is one of the motivations for the construction of the alternative Chuo route via deep tunnels through sparsely-populated mountains. It's still a controversial and expensive project given that travel by Shinkansen is comfortable and most passengers are fine with current travel times. The main reason to expand the route is limited passenger capacity (on the world's busiest high speed rail route) rather than demand for faster speeds.
The Nishi Kyushu shinkansen isn't a very good example to use because it was planned in 1972, didn't start being built until 2008, only opened in 2022 and is only half the route planned because one of the prefectures refused planning permission through it's area because it saw no economic benefit and this left the section that was actually built totally isolated from the rest of the shinkansen network and passengers have to change to ordinary express trains in order to complete the rest of the route. There are no plans to complete it in the future either and even if there were it would be at least another two decades at before it would open.
During the time that the UK has been planning less than 400km of High Speed Rail - China has built 40,000km of High Speed Rail connecting every major city in a vast country.
If only we had millions of readily available workers and no health and safety to worry about.
@@B-A-L High Speed Rail infrastructure Workers in China have Health and Safety protections at a higher level than Construction workers in the USA.
(death and injury rates are lower than in the USA) and their productivity is so high precisely because of the use of innovative new technologies which require high levels of technical knowledge and competence to operate.
You got Gareth. Thank heavens, you got Gareth, probably the most prominent person who actually makes the *entire* case for HS2. But yeah, the simple truth is that a high speed network should have been started as a rolling programme all the way back in the 80s or 90s: the advantage with doing it now is that it can all be done with modern standards and new technology. This could be the fastest, most advanced conventional rail line in the world - we just need the government to seriously commit to it.
"This could be the fastest, most advanced conventional rail line in the world - we just need the government to seriously commit to it." You made me spit out my coffee. That's a level of ignorance/arrogance that only an Englishman can have.
You know that Japan is a place right?
@@sueyourself5413 Whose HSR lines mostly run between 260 and 320km/h, with only a minority going over 300. Yes, I'm aware of Japan's HSR network. At recommended specs, which the government hasn't adopted, HS2 could easily have run at 400km/h, with the line and trains built from the start with 21st century signalling and technology, rather than being retrofitted with it like most existing HSR networks.
The fact that you immediately jumped down my throat and called me ignorant, while showing absolutely no knowledge yourself beyond stereotypes, speaks volumes.
@@sueyourself5413 “could be” it’s not impossible. It would take the government to commit to it. How is this ignorance/arrogance?
@@josephharrison8354 I mean, if they wanted too they could have made it maglev but they chose not to
@@sueyourself5413 I know nothing about rail engineering but to call someone else arrogant with that comment is hypocrisy at the highest degree. You clearly have no interest in starting a respectful discussion and just want to win an internet argument.
Credit to TLDR though for explaining that HS2 is more about CAPACITY OF THE WHOLE RAIL NETWORK rather than just speed and journey time reductions.
Ayyy, Gareth! One of the few people in the public eye that speaks sense about what HS2 is designed to do.
Seen Gareth explain HS2 on other channels in much more depth. For public Transport to work efficiently HS2 needs to be built as originally designed.
@@jonkernow4477
Each time he gets a roasting.
Should have been done years ago. The problems from the corrupt and inept way contracts are bid, awarded and managed. The government goes with the cheapest quote but the businesses quoting know they can under quote and over run by a massive amount with out fear of penalty, its just a cash cow. Also the government award to their cronies, donors as a back hander.
Explain the cheapest quote in the context of a £7 million door at parliament.
Actually in this case, one of the problems was that the HS2 contracts placed too much overrun cost risk on the contractors (something like 70%-30%), so they increased their prices because more risk for them = higher prices.
...hold my Berlin Airport coffee 🍺😆
Lol what nonsense
The cost per mile comparison is not actually that unfair. For example the Stuttgart-Munich connection cosnists of 155km new track (most of it outside of Stuttgart being dedicated high-speed), 87km tunnels, 57 of those under central Stuttgart and the moutains that surround the city, and a brand new underground railway station in Stuttgart with tracks going perpendicular to the old statio, that is completely replacing its predecessor (one of the busiest stations in Germany). The Berlin-Munich connection that was also on the chart had 230km new dedicated high-speed track built through a region that is topographically closer to Wales than the flatness of most of England, with 27 new tunnels of a total length of 63km and 37 new rail bridges including the two longest in Germany.
Same for Italy. For instance, part of the Turin-Salerno line quoted in this video was where they managed to build the section between Bologna and Florence all underground, through the mountains of Tuscany - all for a lot less and a lot quicker than HS2 is due to take through flat, open countryside. What's our excuse in the UK?
@@samuelollis5355 That's awesome! The excuses I keep hearing why the UK can't do the same mostly revolve around how expensive it is to tunnel under built-up areas and how expensive it is to purchase the land. But other projects on the continent have the exact same issues to deal with and manage for a lot less and much quicker... Brexit likely will have increased costs significantly, but suggesting St. Brexit could ever do anything wrong is still a taboo.
@@kortanioslastofhisname or the classic “but we are more densely populated than other places” forgetting we aren’t even in the top ten countries by density
@@Vonononie Oh, yea that is definitely a classic, has also been used to excuse the terrible state if motorways for decades... but somehow the Netherlands (quite a bit higher population density than England, I'm going by England since the people saying things like that forget Scotland, Wales, and NI exist most of the time) and Belgium (population density of England exluding London) have similar topography to England but manage to build more high-speed rail, at a faster pace, creating a denser network, for much lower cost...
But don't ignore that Stuttgart 21 was announced in 1994, and won't be complete until 2025. It is massively over budget too.
The real crying shame of the comparison though. Is that Stuttgart (Germany) is spending all this money on a brand new through station, while we are building brand new dead end stations in our cities!
IF ONLY when rail routes were closed in the 60s there was legislation protecting the track bed routes from development. The Great Central route was superbly engineered as a high speed line from London through the East Midlands to the north and could have formed the mainstay of the route for HS2.
Alas the pro-road government of the time were not so far-sighted or selfless in their aims.
lol, the present government cant plan for 1 week ahead!
The Great Central route was far too curvy. Not a problem for the trains at the time, but not good to run the 300km/h+ high speed trains that HS2 will enable.
I wouldn't worry so much. Every country need new railway corridors, not old ones. Things change a lot in 200 years, and that includes the shape of the track routes.
@@exsandgrounder Absolutely. Gareth (Dennis) has an episode on his channel if anyone wants more detailed information.
But the old Great Central route would be of no use to the main stay of the HS2 destination of Birmingham which the main reason for building HS2
The UK has at least three high speed giants as neighbours yet failed to learn of all of them. Should have given the project to Spanish hands, we are already over 4000 km of HSR
Spain is in the EU tories can't accept that.
Though will be happy to give rail franchising agree ments to renfe.
"over 4000 km of HSR"?? England is a tiny overpopulated country: only 130,279 sq km, 57 million people (434/ sq km). It's the 2nd most densely populated in Europe (Netherlands 508/ sq km). You can't built 4,000 km of HSR in such a populated country like England.
@@davidty2006 nonsense
@@verttijineu2776 Spain is over 4000 miles of hsr not the uk. and they've been able to do it much cheaper than hs2
@@yonirapaport330 Yes I know. As I said: England is a tiny overpopulated country and Spain isn't. Another important thing: Spain is a very low-density population country, making HSR building easy (check vid "Why 70% of Spain is Empty." RLL channel) btw Spain's HSR length is not 4,000 miles (6,400 km) but around 3,760 km (As of December 2021)
Finally a video that actually explains how it actually is so expensive compared to similar projects. Makes sense! Excellent work!
Its very interesting that many of the problems overlap with those of California.
The California project was initially intented to be Los Angeles to San Francisco; it's now Bakersfield to Merced which is of very limited benefit. HS2 may well end up as the southern end of the Old Oak Wood platform to the northern end of the Old Oak Wood platform.
@@John_259 er no, the Bakersfield to Merced is the first leg that will be opened. Reason why? Cheapest area to build and means it can help experiance aquire for the harder streches for the remainder of the project
@@John_259 The California high speed rail (CAHSR) was, and still is, a connection between LA and SF that passes through the San Joaquin Valley to connect to other cities along the way and to avoid the mountainous coastal area.
It is the first section that is being built as it was to easiest to approve. The Merced San Jose section was recently approved. From San Jose it will use the Caltrain tracks (that by 2024 will be electrified, partly funded by CAHSR authority.
The current estimation for the valley to SF is 2031 (which is a bit optimistic).
@@AL5520 And even then, it's not a maglev line, only a conventional line, China and Japan were the first countries to build maglev lines, with China being the first to build a maglev line at all, and Japan being the first to build a large-scale maglev line.
@@candyneige6609 I mean sure, but beggars can't be choosers. I'll take a 250-300 MPH line in a country that has only up to 150 MPH.
I used to sell huge amounts of IT to the governmentt. They go by the cheapest quote.
So all of companies that quote go in super low and whack on a heap of stuff once contract is signed.
How come the UK won't look at the Netherlands, Spain or even Japan when designing and running their train services? Those 3 nations managed to do things OK or great and it's not like they're asking for royalties for the ideas.
We actually helped the dutch railways rebuild post WW2.
by that we gave them a bunch of electric class 77 locomotives.
A successor to Gresleys EM 1 Class 76 that the prototype was used to help repair war damage.
Because UK is actually the best and the three measly countries look at the UK with envy in terms of innovation and democracy. The UK can have the slowest trains in the world and would still come up on top in innovation.
@@marktrinidad7650 what are you even talking about
British people tend to look down on Europe.
@@davidty2006 we need to move on from the ‘actually in the War Britain did x y z’. Since then the dutch infrastructure has completely changed, generations have now come and gone. The original comment is right, why aren’t we looking at what works for our neighbours instead of regurgitate past British glory. If we keep looking back to the 1940s we will (have) be left behind
The problem with HS2 is that the initial plan was designed more around speed than around the more important issues of capacity and connectivity. It was also designed to go via Heathrow which at some point along the way got scrapped but the rest of the scheme wasn't updates to reflect that. The scope has changed so many times that it's become a complete Frankenstein of a project which no longer meets the aims it was initially meant to, never mind the arguably more important aims that it could have been designed for instead (such as following the M1 corridor and directly connecting more cities, even if journey times would be slightly slower).
The important thing with projects like this is to determine what their aim is, design the project for that aim and stick with it.
how is the saying; plan what you do, do what you plan
The thing is that if you made it slower then you would still want to run express trains on the east and west main lines which is currently halving their capacity. By making HS2 fast you can get to Leeds the long way via Birmingham faster than the direct route, so you can take all the express trains off the East and West coast main lines and double their capacity.
It is badly managed but doubling the capacity of the east and west coast main lines would have been more expensive and you still wouldn't have a high speed line.
The problem is that the government haven't been managing the industry by providing a continuous stream of infrastructure projects. If the industry knew that the government was going to spend 15 billion a year on infrastructure the contracts wouldn't have to pay for building the machinery, teams and capacity in every contract.
@@daveansell1970 You're saying that if you slowed down HS2 you'd still want to run express trains on existing lines but I think that's a bit of a misconception. The purpose of a new line shouldn't be primarily speed but rather connectivity and capacity. More stops would mean that long distance journeys between the ends of the line (i.e. London to Leeds) might be slightly slower but if you have a service that stops at, for example, Milton Keynes, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds you've created a bunch better connected line and cut journey times to and from the other places on route which would otherwise still want the faster service on existing lines.
@@EuroDC1990 you would still need express trains on the existing lines, as otherwise you would slow down the journey from London to Leeds, because going via Birmingham is further. Slower journey times won't help move people from cars and planes.
The original HS2 was supposed to connect to HS1 so that trains using the Channel tunnel could run all the way to the North. Stratford International station was built as the London station for trains going north because those trains would not be terminating at St Pancras.
The 3 reasons explained here answer the question "why HS2 costs so much" but I think the real question should rather be "why was the project inflated this much in price since estimates?".
I understand the lack of commitment and supply chain for big projects, but this should've been the baseline even when estimations were made
The expert described the issue, if you listened. This is a pretty standard scope creep situation.
HS2 was probably initiated at the cost of the lines, which is the simple part. Once you add the complex parts in cities etc, the prices inflate. The cost to do a full estimate is usually so large that businesses and governments don’t want to commit millions upon millions into an estimate that they don’t end up following through on.
I see it all the time, but on a much smaller scale than HS2.
they didnt calculated the amount of bribes and corruption the Tories need!
I’m a civil project manager and I work on a lot of infrastructure projects in London, I haven’t worked on HS2 before but I have a lot of friends/colleagues that do. The real reason why HS2 is failing is because the Government wants all of the contractors to produce carbon trackers and are incentivising them to be carbon neutral. All the firms are obviously driven by profit and therefore reach this goal with relative ease but what the Government doesn’t understand is that half the work gets done when we are carbon neutral. Let me explain, a whacker plate is used to compact ground and is basically used for all civil projects, it’s vital for achieving adequate ground conditions. A standard whacker plate is powered by petrol- but there’s an alternative, an electric whacker plate. What they don’t understand is that electric whacker plates take 3 hours to charge and has about 15-20 minutes usage time. On top of this, they are twice as expensive as normal ones and you have to hire in multiple to do the job of one normal whacker plate due to usage times. So although you are saving carbon emissions, you are tripling your costs and you are getting less work done.
Due to the fact that the contracts being issued by HS2 are NEC option C contacts, the overall price of the project can change based on certain circumstances. One of the CE clauses (Compensation Event) written in the contracts will 100% be time/money lost due to using electric machinery/plant. This means that every time a contractor thinks they have lost time or money due to using electric machinery to try and be carbon neutral, they will apply for a CE which the Government will be forced to accept because 9 times out of 10 they are true.
The technology simply isn’t there to be carbon neutral. If Sunak wants to reign this project in he needs to scrap the idea of being carbon neutral and change all contracts on HS2 to NEC option A contracts, which will force all contractors to stick to delivering the project for the price they stated. Stop trying to be clever and just do it the way we know how to do it.
With wages at current levels ordinary people won't be able to use this marvellous HS2
There's no way this government would spend so much public money without a good chunk of it going to their donors and ending up offshore.
It's been 13 years we know the song
Eh. Sure the Tories are corrupt but infrastructure going over budget with or without corruption is hardly unheard of. Especially in a nation where you completely lack expertise with such projects.
From what I've seen, 70% of the budget for HS2 is going on just getting the line those couple of dozen miles out of the Home Counties. Which explains why they've axed the important Leeds section of the route and barely saved any cash from doing so (but these are Tories and we're talking about the north so, y'know... fcuk northerners).
It's amazing how much cheaper it gets once the line enters the Midlands where prices are depressed, The NIMBY armies are fewer and not as many vote Tory.
HS1 is the Eurostar track. It was delivered much later than the French section. Because it was so slow it compromised the efficiency of the whole trip - 2.5 hours from London to Paris or Brussels. Part of the purpose of HS2 was to improve links between the North of England and Paris and beyond. Euston station, where HS2 terminates is a short walk from ST Pancras International. Obvioulsy brexthick compromised the whole project. Passport controls have reduced the number of Eurostar trains by 30% due to the amount of time it takes to get through passport control now that UK citizens no longer have freedom of movement.
but its now legal in the UK to wave the Union Jack, as long the Scots trot along!
HS2 was going to link up with HS1 but they cancelled that as a cost-cutting measure.
@@freddie_w Where did you get the idea of HS2 connecting to HS1, I live in Birmingham and have followed the HS2 project from it's start of building and in the local News there was never any mention of this idea, just some ones weared thoughts as there is no reason that HS2 a domestic high speed line to relieve traffic on the WCML and Birmingham New Street to London Euston would never require to connect to HS1 and the continent as there would be no custom for it.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 why would there be no custom for a direct train from Birmingham or Manchester to Paris?
@@freddie_w Because of these very simple reasons;
1/ Both Birmingham and Manchester have airports close to their respective City Centers.
2/ From both Airports there are cheap flights to Europe by carriers such as Easy Jet , Ryan Air, Lufthansa, British Airway's and Air France;
3/ It is quicker by Air from these places and cheaper to places such as Paris than Rail from Birmingham and Manchester;
4/ By Rail even from Birmingham the journey to London would take 50 mis plus waiting for said train, another hour to cross London at a sedate speed of about 40 mph and then about 2 hours on the HS1 line;
5/ At least Birmingham Airport has a station on the HS2 line;
6/ Customs Checks;
7/ HS2 has always been a domestic hispeed line designed to speed up services from Birmingham, Scotland and the North West to relieve rail congestion on the Existing WCML and Birmingham New Street so relieving the existing lines that can not be upgraded to carry more freight and passenger services to towns and Cities not on the HS2 line
8/ The cost o a rail ticket from Birmingham and Manchester by rail to Paris would out way the coat of a cheap air fare;
9/ And lastly why would people want to sit cramped up on a train for 4 to 5 hours from Birmingham to Paris when they could do the same trip by air for about 1 hour;
So basically Freddie that is the reason, plus the fact that Domestic Intercity trains and European train are not compatible with their width in coach bodies, domestic British trains are built to fit the slimmer British Loading Gauge where as European trains are designed to the European UIC or Berne Gauge where the coach bodies are wider so would not fit through our domestic high level platforms.
For the same reason the Lords spend £7 million on a door.
The civil service in the UK is corrupt is the simple answer.
The HS program is 30yrs of hold-off on those regional railway-capacity works, we'll chuck it into the HS2 engineering.
This is why it seems to radical, its 30yrs worth of cut a tree here, build a bridge there, instead of dribbling it out over the years. This is why it is so very expensive.
There is now little else to cut out, except the additional commuter works that made it worthwhile.
Yayy, awesome to see Dennis on here
Oh no, the really expensive rail project is now “too expensive”as it reaches the North of England. What a surprise! Who could have written that narrative AGAIN!
The North doesn’t need a shitty high speed train to London, it needs the entire rail network reworked. HS2 is just another way for the government to take jobs away from the North and increase disparity
I visited many hs2 site and the amount of money being waisted is amazing one case 50 tons of wood chipping dumped in to the ground and covered over , lines of brand new construction equipment sat on site not being used for months on end .
Finally good coverage of the topic. Thanks, I understand a little better now.
wait, the brits only have ONE highspeed rail??
Yes and it was built 15 years ago
@@Tasmosunt And actually works.
Wow it's like a labour government can actually get shit done.
It's not really a particularly fair comparison to frame things in this manner, the UK has a very dense rail network going through some of the most densely populated places in Europe and it is possible to reach just about anywhere in the country within the space of about 5 hours requiring there arent any delays, most intercity journeys being about 2 or under. For most of these journeys speeds are quite high, but not to the extent that they are classified as officially high speed, but they are sufficient for everyday usage, e.g. I make a semi-regular commute during some week days from an apartment in London to an office in Cardiff, in total, Tube connections included the whole journey only takes about 2.5 hours which is quite reasonable for such a distance with all the changes involved. The speeds in the UK are appropriate given the urban geography, distribution of the population and size of the country as a whole. It makes much more sense for example for Spain to have an extensive HS network given where its cities are and how much of the population is situated in a string of very dense cities surrounded by very sparse countryside.
HS2 (a bad name), while being high speed wont actually improve arrival times that much, for most journeys it will only shave off about 20 to 30 minutes, what it is actually intended as is as a capacity multiplier, by removing faster trains from English mainlines, that frees up an exponential amount of capacity and reliability for the utilisation of denser local, regional and freight services of the core of the UK rail network. A more appropriate name for the scheme would have been the translation of Shinkansen - New Main Trunk Line which is what it actually is in practice, the fact it is 'high speed' is mostly just for the purposes of marketing.
@@hpsauce1078 Japan has a higher population density. They also have more high speed rail than the UK.
@@neodym5809 It does, but once again, if you look at the geography Japan has more closely, you will still find that Japanese geography favours HSR better than in the UK. Japan consists of a series of very densly populated flat coastal plains situated more or less along a straight line from one side of the country to the other with each city having a population between 3 and 10 times the size of the average British one, giving them a bigger market to fund these schemes. These are separated by nearly empty forested mountain ranges that separate the plains, this makes it very economically sensible to connect them using a series of strategically placed mountain tunnels.
British cities in comparison are dense but in an odd sprawling manner, in essence the UK is like a very dense version of American suburbia. Houses sprawl out for miles in a spiderweb like network of cul-de-sacs etc, building between all of these obstacles is exceptionally expensive, and its cities tend to be built in mildly hilly lowlands not completely flat plains. The population is also not spread along a linear axis making train lines more difficult to justify because the percentage of the population that will benefit from them is much less comparatively. So oddly, most of the UK's new rail lines will have to be built in cuttings going through mild hills, whilst the shinkansen it built more or less like a traditional rail line on an elevated linear mound connected by a series of very impressive tunnels.
So effectively the UK has density, but in the most unhelpful way possible whilst Japan, although mountainous and prone to disaster has a very dense population distribution that makes HSR still very expensive but much more easily justifiable.
This project is absolutely needed to add capacity to the network. Part of the reason for cost increase has been pandering to NIMBYism (with many more expensive tunnels than needed) and anti-rail/public transport bias from people who would never be bothered if the same amount was spent on roads. Get it finished already! A rolling programme of rail development and electrification is needed.
Meanwhile in Indonesia after 8 yrs of struggles we finally have the HSR
awesome i liked the little bits of the interview thrown in there
nice job
This will most definitely get lost in the comments and a bit of a "Source: Trust me bro". But I have a friend that's a mechanic fixing a lot of the vehicles involved in the project. He's on mega money for doing very little. He's a talented young man that can work very hard and they've just not utilising him at all. He was telling me there were three bolts that needed tightening and he wasn't allowed to touch them because he would lose his job. Another guy on mega money drove 2 hours to tighten these three bolts and then drove home and made thousands in the process. Too much paperwork and no sense. "It's a complete con" is his exact words.
Getting Gareth Dennis on this was a baller move - he is the most outspoken and well-spoken thinker on HS2 there is.
Minor technicality - under the original plans, the eastern leg would call at an all new station called East Midlands Hub (midway between Nottingham and Derby). In the cut back plans, East Midlands Hub was done away with and HS2 trains are now proposed to call at the existing East Midlands Parkway station instead.
Another reason why it's so overbudget (which no one's really talking about in the press) is that if you let them use a bit of your land for the project, they will actually do some maintenance work for you - free of charge. E.g. if you've got a fence you want to install/upgrade or a carpark you want to build/re-tarmac they'll do it for free as compensation for going through your land to build the railway and or other bits of necessary infrastructure for the projects
Finally. Been waiting literal years for Gareth to turn up on the channel.
A classic UK infrastructure tale. We always end up with bits and pieces of the original project.
Three consultancies ARUP, Atkins and Mott McDonald have concluded that a viable upgrade of the ECML is possible, near equalling HS2 journey times. This will provide a 30% increase in capacity and give speed improvements for York and Newcastle at considerably less cost.
They don't preclude further improvements such as a new station in Leeds, Sheffield to Leeds 'Northern Powerhouse Rail', the Nottingham to Newark HS2 ECML bypass/link.
Some proposed improvements are:
*1)* Maximum line speed increase from 125mph to 140mph
*2)* Welwyn capacity upgrade
*3)* Huntingdon - Woodwalton 4-tracking
*4)* Grantham Performance Improvement
*5)* Newark Flat Junction Grade Separation
*6)* Doncaster freight avoidance
*7)* York - Skelton 3rd line
*8)* Darlington additional platforms
Bypasses are needed around York and Morpeth. Morpeth is a notorious death spot and _needs_ to be done.
Great way to destroy commuter traffic.
@@thomasgray4188
Slow tracks for them.
Loved this style of video, learnt lots and put things in context
As a journalist working overseas, I was one of the few lucky ones to board the maglev between Tokyo and Nagoya. It's quiet and stable, and when I closed my eyes, I really could forget that I was moving at 500km per hour.
Gareth as always, great insight into rail infrastructure. Also excellent on Well there's your problem podcast.
When you look at some of the original plans for HS1+2 you can make yourself pretty miserable. There were initially plans for eurostar trains to have multiple terminus stations in different parts of the UK, so you'd be able to do things like sleeper services from Paris to Edinburgh, or Manchester to Brussels, which could have greatly increased tourism and business prospects outside of London.
It seems in the UK that any time there's a good infrastructure project that would benefit other parts of the country, it gets pared back until it barely delivers on its initial aims and becomes even more unpopular because of how useless it is.
Think there was plans to run eurostar trains up the ECML to newcastle and scotland....
idk what happened to that.
Westminster doesn't seem to care about the north
The elephant in the room when it comes to international railway services from the North of England to France and beyond is passport control arrangements. Currently all E* stations in Kent are closed, as is Lille Europe, because during the pandemic E* could not remain afloat while still paying the British and French governments for border control.
The UK and French authorities have a complicated reciprocal arrangement whereby a train must be cleared for international travel at the point of departure, including all bags scanned. Passport checks on board are not acceptable.
Since the number of passengers likely to make a HS2->HS1 journey is only enough to fill 1 or 2 trains as evidenced by the current number of flights from Manchester to Paris, and remembering that you can't use an international train for domestic services, you would be looking at staffing a brand new UK border for a mere hour per day. If the passengers have to pick up the bill for that (which they do) on top of the new infrastructure, there's no possible way that it can be competitive with the flight on price, and thus the business case falls apart.
The only good and useful solution is simply to offer through ticketing on HS2 and Eurostar on day trains, or on an early morning E* after a sleeper and vice versa.
@asdaneedsfunds passport control might not be so much of an issue if the UK were to rejoin the EU and just looking at data of Paris to Manchester flights does not directly translate into passenger numbers for trains. For example if an E* train had multiple stops. It could also be run like the Caledonian Sleeper where it could be divided into sections that went to different destinations.
@@asdaneedsfunds Also one can consider that England outside of London is not that attractive for French tourists whereas Paris will always remain a holliday destination for Brits wherever they live in the UK. So the British government has no special economical interest in facilitating the export of its national population in hords of tourists abroad.
Damn you actually had a great expert on the show for this. I usually dislike interview-ish content, but this was really good 👍
That's what happens when your interviewee is a nerd who was already loaded up with knowledge, before working hard on communication skills and honing a blisteringly honest message.
Good comment about the fact that in the UK we do nothing for decades then dream up a huge infrastructure project which we are not geared up to do. In Germany, they have a rolling list of infrastructure projects so that companies know how to do them and there is a large enough body of trained people to do the projects.
The franchise system did work as intended. It put public money into private hands.
You don't have the right supply chain, so any major infrastructure project's budget spirals out of control, so the government doesn't have the political capital for another major infrastructure project, so the supply chain is redirected or dismantled, repeat.
This is a consistent problem, e.g. the crossrail systems were intended to follow one after another, so that the experience and supply chains would compound and entrench themselves making it theoretically exponentially cheaper to construct lines in the future. For example the system was designed to have a one size fits all station design with similar design language throughout in order to improve replicability in the future.
What is happening instead is that they finished Crossrail overbudget and that has dampened moods to try again with crossrail 2 which has largely been mothballed for the time being. If we wait say 5 years to start again, those logistical and educational networks will atrophy and we will have to learn all over again how to build a regional underground line, rehire civil engineers who may have moved into a new line of work etc. The key with these big projects is to have a consistent pipeline for them, our habit of building big projects one decade and then not doing anything for another is incredibly inefficient and needs to be phased out as a development model.
@@hpsauce1078 Exactly. No one is gonna wait. A more dramatic example is what happened between WW1 and WW2. The arms industry famously started making bicycles and consumer goods; you don't revert that overnight.
It’s good to have a genuine expert in public sector projects and public infrastructure, his expertise gels completely with my experience and it’s really good to see the facts shown publicly.
Shouldn't the first project be to think up a way to make rails 10x cheaper than the cheapest elsewhere?
Find it sad to see the actual part of HS2 that needed it the most (connections to Leeds/surrounding areas) were binned.
Seems that no engineering project in the UK can either run within budget or time scales. The building of Wembley stadium is another immediate structural project that was both hideously expensive and slow to construct. Guess that is the state of the UK in the 21st Century.
haven't seen anyone complaining about Wembley now.
It's actually doing really good.
@@davidty2006 It cost twice, three times the budget £700bn in early/mid 2000s is insanely expensive) and was 2 years (I think) late in completion. Plus within 15 years it's not even the best stadium in London anymore.
A14 Huntingdon Bypass was open ahead of schedule...
Why is the scrapped HS2 route to Leeds and the surrounding area needed the most, the areas that need HS2 the most are Birmingham because of the fact Birmingham New Street is getting grid locked and strangled by the amount of trains using it which is affecting both the Birmingham to London services and also other service through New Street to the rest of the Country, it is far quicker via the ECML and MML than travelling from Leeds to Birmingham and then South to London.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 Guess you've never had the experience of travelling in/around Leeds/surrounding areas then. Leed to Sheffield is 29 miles and takes between 55mins and 1hr 20m. Remember, Leeds is the 3rd most populous city in the UK. It shouldn't be serviced so poorly, with such slow train routes.
I love how universally everyone recognizes corruption when they see it.
It's like every country has gone through the exact same thing.. Hmm..
Not to connect HS2 TO HS1 will be a disgrace.
Couldn’t have had a better expert on this topic 👍🏼 Gareth is a legend
They should have started building from Leeds and go downwards. That way, the North would have had some rail improvements and could not have been cancelled.
Let's be honest, too much has been spent on London (CrossRail), other cities need improvements before London get more.
Why not start at Edinburgh and/or Glasgow and then include the rest of the north beyond Leeds?
AsHS" is a Birmingham based project with HS2 headquarters in Birmingham that is why the majority of HS2 work starts in Birmingham and working North to Stafford and South to London with building work working from London North to meet up with work in the Midlands
@@simonn2045 The need for extra railway capacity is greater in the south, so makes more sense to start it there. As Gareth explained, though, smaller projects getting HS rail further north would make sense from a cost perspective.
@@simonn2045 Because the current routes above Leeds are not at capacity and it make sense building the routes that are at capacity first and offer the biggest benefit. Starting in London is the right choice for the project as the most benefits would be achieved more quickly starting from the south just due to choke points and capacity.
Great that you have Gareth Dennis on. He appears to be very knowledgeable on the project. Good nuance on the most common arguments.
They couldn't even build the Elizabeth Line without major delays and budget blowouts 😂😂
My thoughts on Gareth's the thoughts:
_1) Too big a project makes for too big a sticker price_
If we made 10 smaller projects under a strategy, would the total cost be more, the same or less than £100bn? Are there efficiency gains doing it well at once. For instance, do you have to hire the same solicitors 10 times instead of just once? This is unclear. Are they just hiding the cost by breaking it up? Will many smaller projects leave the supply chain in thought (3) in a better place?
_2) Not enough commitment from central government._
I don't understand why not commitment will make it cheaper, this is not explained. It's it just another thing that makes (3) better?
Or do regular government contracts make it so more construction SMEs and, consequently, large construction enterprises take root because there is more money and not regular money to be made?
_3) Boom & Bust for enterprise's causes fragmentation in the construction company and supply chain companies._
Improving (1) & (2) will improve the supply chain situation. However we should take the 20% hit on cost of it means preserving usage of British SMEs (Small to Medium Enterprises) rather than using foreign construction mega corporations.
This is a good deal and keeps that 100bn in our economy.
People always forget what happens to the money, that somehow it magically poofs into the railway.
The SMEs pay themselves with it, and those people then spend that money in the British economy.
This is a good thing.
If you hire a multinational megacorp it will be foreign, likely French, German or Chinese and now that 100bn has left the country.
If HS2 went through all of the most expensive old people's homes it'd get built in a heartbeat
Is this sarcasm that I'm failing to get?
In addition, it's classed as an "England and Wales" project, despite not going into Cymru itself, and thus Cymru misses out on some additional funding given to Scotland and N.I. Ychafi
It'll probably never happen, but hopefully Wales can be an independent country one day and be able to preserve/put their own culture ahead of the colonisers.
HS2 has and has never been a Wles project.
@@Devilishlybenevolent As with the result of the UK Supreme court over Scottish Independence ruling, the answer is a categorically NO until the UK Government says YES.
They should have designed it to flow in with HS1 and the Channel tunnel to allow Eurostar and International trains to go straight into regional UK. But no, it wasn't about connecting Europe to UK. It was all about connecting Europe to more specifically, London.
Isn't there a end to free movement for the UK population to EU nations?
@@originalunoriginal4055 you can still travel freely, it was aimed more at people illegally migrating
@@electro_sykesFree movement was when you could work and live in any EU country without a visa. You have no right to do that now, so free movement is about legal immigrants
Brilliant. Well written.
As a experienced engineer the point I would make is we have a systematic problem with governance and planning in UK. So as Gareth said any infra delivery in UK suffers these problems so alternatives have exactly the same issues.
The main point is we need governments who can plan long term for anything to get better and in UK that is totally absent at the moment
As a QS and construction project manager for many years I totally agree. The government procurement process is flawed, resulting in problems from the start. They also start works before the design is completed for political reasons, this causes changes to work already carried out, increasing costs. They deliberately fudge the budgets so it gets approval. As was stated in the video they don’t carry out the works in sensible separate sections. They use very poor contract / tendering systems that allow for second stage cost increases. Basically everything they do is doomed to fail both in time and budget.
I think it's worth mentioning that HS2 isn't just about commuting and the movement of people - it's also about getting freight off the roads and transporting it more efficiently between the two places where it's used most. Hauling as a method of bulk movement is pretty inefficient , so this does quite a lot for cleaning up our air and easing the burden on roads.
Because tory corruption
The problem is an imprecise primary valuation, that now increases due to discoveries of hurdles along the project's execution. Wages and land purchases are also hefty expenditures
So happy to see Garreth getting more visibility!
Whenever I hear about something like that I remember that Brooklyn Bridge took way more money and way more time to built than New York expected, yet no one cares about it now.
One of the biggest corruption scandals in early-2010s Russia was the fact that Gazprom was builting the biggest football stadium in St. Petersburg way too long and way too expensive (at some point the builders even claimed the roof was destroyed by birds and they had to build a new one). I've been to the stadium in 2019 - and it's just a good football stadium, no one remembers those scandals.
If it's useful, safe and good enough, people will use it and no one will care. Obviously, it would be better to build stuff exactly according to a project - fast and cheap, but no one lives in a perfect world. Moreover, people in the US and the UK live in a world where airlines lobbying in government and media is way too influential and that's a problem when it comes to building railways.
I can just testimony in this. In Switzerland, in Japan, in Germany, in the USA, every rail project overshoot it's estimation. Always.
I don't know why, but my theory is, that for the projects to be accepted, the initiator always try to sell it cheap to the public, before dealing with the realities midway.
Overshooting is one thing, the magnitude is another. UK is world leading in that regard (for once...)
@@neodym5809 even compared to the us? With it's California railway.
@@makuru_dd3662 Is the Californian high speed railway in a serious planing phase? I say they have an excuse due to earth quakes.
@@neodym5809 I dunno, i just know it has a lot of drama.
@neodym5809 California HSR have been in construction since 2015. The first phase will be completed in 2029 (Merced-Bakersfield).
Remember when intercity train was launched that could do120 mph .it was really exciting to travel on the intercity because it was futuristic compared to the old trains.
It will make no difference which company operates HS2, if the government wants the passenger to cover the cost of this project, plus the operating cost, as they do now, the tickets will be impossibly expensive.
UK: "We have low energy of commitment of big infrastructure projects, that's why we fail".
Europe: "Don't you still not understand why we DIVIDE big infrastructure projects into SMALLER broken bits!"
It's just common sense, smaller projects are relatively easier to complete, and once they get done you are naturally motivated into doing the next smaller phases.
Having a massive project is a daunting task, it always seems impossible to complete, moreover once a massive project gets done all you tend to experience is fatigue due to the endless time and stress it took to finish it!
Don't forget the demotivation that comes when you eventually have no choice but to let go of some original plans of a huge project because you finally get to realize that they are just not viable!
It is also extra important with rail infrastructure, where you basically want to always work on the tracks. Be it updating/upgrading old track or laying new track, since a longer break between building it generally leads to those techniques not being maintained and resulting in a higher building cost when stuff has to be rediscovered. This is likely one of the main reasons why high speed rail in other european countries has such low cost per track mile/kilometer.
Lmao. Just 500 km of High Speed Rail is so big for UK that you need to "divide it" into stages? No. These are just excuses. Look at the similar project in India. 500 km of HSR, all elevated, Japanese tech in signalling and rolling stock, all for $14 Billion that appreciated to $21 Billion after land acquisition. Despite political wrangling and attempts at stalling by a rival political party.
You called out project management but failed to call out project sponsorship failures which is arguably a larger issue with big projects like this.
If there is significant pressure from sponsors to be as fast and cheap as possible at the proposal phase you usually see quality and risk mitigation measures getting cut out (as anyone working projects will know you can't have all 3). Then when the project runs into issues there is no capacity to absorb them and it becomes over budget and behind schedule.
Really a proposal should be pitched at mid-point costs and schedules then there is enough manoeuvring room to manage the project and expectations are set at a more realistic point so the inevitable issues that arise it doesn't become a headline.
How? I'm interested can you help
me?
the bots are evolving I see
HS2 has had a high environmental impact. It will be expensive to use. Non mainline stations desperate need for modernisation. I'm sure some are making £££££ from this project.
High speed rail is so valuable for a society that it is always worth it.
Explain how?
I tell you why.
Because in England every worker has a manager, and that manager have a manager, and then that manager again have a manager and so on.
If a manager doesnt have an answer then its "heath and safety reasons".
If a manager dont want to give an answer then its "personal data".
Haha, it's funnier cos it's true
I've heard jibes about Royal Navy having more admirals than ships, but you want to tell me that is not the case for your navy alone but your entire country? No wonder things are in such bad shape.
Ironically, Berlin's new airport suffered from fragmented work too. Lots of smaller contracts, impossible to manage and oversee leading to a bunch of issue, so much that they actually couldn't turn off the airport; nobody knew where to turn it off electricity entirely.
One thing London doesn’t need:
more commuters…