Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

High Speed 2 cost row triggers battle for credibility

Government plans to boost confidence in High Speed 2 by publishing revised costs for the mega-scheme have backfired and now threaten to derail it, senior industry experts said last week.

Soon after the government announced that the construction budget had risen by £10bn to £42.6bn, it was revealed that it had also ratcheted up its level of certainty that the scheme will come in to budget.

Typically, at this early stage, there is only a 50% certainty that would be delivered to the budget assigned to it.

But ministers have decided that increasing the budget would increase the certainty that the project would be delivered on budget to 95%.

Experts expressed surprise at what is seen as an unprecedented decision for a major public project at such an early stage.

They said the move was inexplicable and warned that rather than increase confidence in the controversial scheme, it could instead undermine it.

One senior consultant said that he found the revised projection “very scary”.

Speaking at a panel discussion on the Spending Round 2013 held by cost consultant EC Harris last week, Steer Davies Gleave non-executive director Jim Steer questioned the logic behind the move.

“I simply don’t understand why at this stage … it is appropriate to announce a budget at a P95 level [equating to a 95% certainty that the project would come in on budget], whereas the previous estimates were at a P50 level [50% certainty],” said Steer.

“I think Network Rail, was quite happy with, and had no trouble with, [a] P80 level.”

Officials have done little to quell confusion about the cost increase following the annoucement of the hike on the day of the Spending Round 2013 late last month.

It remains unclear what proportion of the cost increase is due to specific design changes required to mitigate environmental concerns and what proportion is increases in contingency funds.

Speaking at a Commons Public Accounts Committee last week Department for Transport HS2 director general David Prout attempted to offer a breakdown.

“The global figure for phase 1 and phase 2 together is £42.6bn,” he said.

“In addition, there is £7.5bn for rolling stock, which includes £1.7bn of contingency. For phase 1, the total cost at P95 level of contingency is £21.4bn, which includes £5.7bn of contingency. For phase 2, the total is £21.2bn, with £8.7bn at P95 level of contingency.”

But there is still confusion in the construction industry about what the extra costs are for.

NCE understands from sources close to the scheme that the design changes, including introducing a section of tunnel between Old Oak common and Northolt in the London section, are only responsible for relatively small increases in the cost.

One senior source put the construction cost at £37bn, while Steer agreed that he felt the actual cost had not risen dramatically.

“The explanation [for the cost increase] I’ve had is: ‘Well, yes of course costs did go up and we told you they’d gone up for the first phase from £16bn to £18bn earlier this year, and I don’t think we should be surprised at that level of cost increase given that the project definition is being changed in response to local objection, another tunnel and all that shenanigans’,” he said.

Steer and others warned that the confusion and apparent sharp hike in costs were threatening to destabilise support for the scheme.

“To my way of reckoning the cost hasn’t suddenly gone up but it’s certainly triggered some political commentary and reaction,” he said, referring also to an article in the Financial Times (FT) by former Labour business secretary and key Labour party adviser Lord Mandelson. In the article, Mandelson warns that HS2 was at risk of becoming an “expensive mistake”.

“I think that does start to give a real sense of risk to the project,” said Steer.

“This is about thinking about the long term, and I for one have no doubt that if HS2 now, not just suffers a wobble which all big projects do, but is actually put into review, or put into the long grass, we will have a real serious problem that there is no answer to address for our rail network going forward.”

Also at the EC Harris event, Olympic Delivery Authority chairman and former Network Rail chief executive Sir John Armitt warned that HS2’s future was now uncertain.

“This fundamentally is a political issue,” he said. “Mandelson makes the point in the FT that the decision to go ahead by the Labour party was a political decision without an enormous amount of evidence and I think as people in the rail industry we have to recognise that we have a situation still where 88% of all journeys made in the country are not made by rail.

“Clearly there is a risk that this will not happen. Personally I think it is time in this country that we did actually add to something to the 19th century rail network and it’s got nothing to do with speed… What we have certainly not done is sell capacity and the wider economic benefits.

“In current political environment you can see this is a pretty risky time and will get riskier I suspect as the election approaches.”

HS2 Ltd commented on Mandelson’s article by saying: “We recognise the challenge that has been laid down and our need to respond.

Readers' comments (2)

  • Barry Walton

    Did David Prout really say "For phase 1, the total cost at P95 level of contingency is £21.4bn, which includes £5.7bn of contingency......"? The cost of contingency includes contingency? Or is that "at P95 level of contingency, the total cost (projection) is....." and 95% certainty includes a 25% contingency?

    Whatever, John Armitt has probably hit the button by raising capacity and robustness as fundamental issues. We travelled from Westbury to Bath and back last Saturday by train, normally a highly convenient half hour one way that beats other forms of transport. The outgoing train was delayed by 38 minutes due to - earlier trains being delayed, passengers transferring between trains, a train failure and problems with electricity: thankfully no leaves and no snow but I had been anticipating distorted rails due to the sunshine. Each novel delay announcement was accompanied by time changes that jerked about as fine adjustments were made to the eta - 24 mins, 29 mins 23 mins etc dealy. On the way back we had to stand.

    What the railway builder buffs need to get into their heads is the need for a rail journey that is near certain in time terms, not that it takes 45 minutes rather than 75 minutes. It is the only differentiating advantage the system has over other modes of transport. It does not offer guarantees seated travel, (mandatory on aircraft, cars and long distance bus journeys, practically unavoidable on a bike) adequate storage for luggage nor particularly satisfactory parking and waiting facilities. The providers need to forget that a higher speed journey between Euston and the selected Birmingham terminal, if such a journey can be delivered once all of the increasing lengths of tunnel speed restrictions have been factored in, is almost certainly not going to be a higher speed journey from London the the wider Midlands. Capacity, certainty, convenience and comfort should be the aim of the railway offering not high cost speed records.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I cannot agree more. Reliability of the whole journey is much more important than the length of the journey. Getting to Birmingham from London 20 minutes quicker will make no difference to all the other journeys into Birmingham. Improving capacity on all the other routes will be a much better strategy than putting all these eggs into one very expensive basket called HS2. We still don't know where all the eggs are coming from anyway.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.