HS2 and the future of British railways

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There must be a reason why this has gone so badly wrong. The government put up the money and agreed the project, but it’s the civil servants whose responsibility it is to get the specification for the contract right and to set performance measures, and it is also their job to ensure those performance measures (which will include monitoring costs and the progress of the project) are met. This is what appears to have gone badly wrong.

Clearly, if the government changes requirements during the rollout of the project, any additional costs associated with that will be down to them, but those additional costs should be picked up and factored in. The shambles that we are seeing here are replicated in all the contract specifications and performance monitoring in the privatised industries. We should be employing people who actually understand what the hell they are doing when it comes to contract management.

The Government that can do no wrong has it's excuse baked in every time at CCHQ.

A special mention must surely be reserved for the consultancies trousering billions to provide such expertise because we've eroded the state so much there's none in the public sector. That, of course, was and remains a political choice.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There must be a reason why this has gone so badly wrong. The government put up the money and agreed the project, but it’s the civil servants whose responsibility it is to get the specification for the contract right and to set performance measures, and it is also their job to ensure those performance measures (which will include monitoring costs and the progress of the project) are met. This is what appears to have gone badly wrong.

Clearly, if the government changes requirements during the rollout of the project, any additional costs associated with that will be down to them, but those additional costs should be picked up and factored in. The shambles that we are seeing here are replicated in all the contract specifications and performance monitoring in the privatised industries. We should be employing people who actually understand what the hell they are doing when it comes to contract management.

One small problem with your thesis re "civil servants" - High Speed Two (HS2) Limited is the company responsible for developing and promoting the UK’s new high speed rail network. It is funded by grant-in-aid from the government.

HS2 Ltd is an executive non-departmental public body; it's run by these people, none of whom are Civil Servants...

Originally Posted by Hugh

HS2 Ltd is an executive non-departmental public body; it's run by these people, none of whom are Civil Servants...

I believe the point was they would have screwed it up just as badly if the actual government had been another party ?

Originally Posted by Paul

I believe the point was they would have screwed it up just as badly if the actual government had been another party ?

I believed the point was that OB was blaming Civil Servants, when it’s not run by Civil Servants…

but it’s the civil servants whose responsibility it is to get the specification for the contract right and to set performance measures, and it is also their job to ensure those performance measures (which will include monitoring costs and the progress of the project) are met. This is what appears to have gone badly wrong.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Is there any solid evidence for your assertion (other than their fiscal deficit)?

If you been to France a few time, this is self evident. The tenacious preservation of their local shops e.g. boulangerie, etc. in the face of large, cheaper supermarkets, Their strange insistence on buying French cars, their preference to speak French to tourists, etc. I am sure there are many more examples

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

If you been to France a few time, this is self evident. The tenacious preservation of their local shops e.g. boulangerie, etc. in the face of large, cheaper supermarkets, Their strange insistence on buying French cars, their preference to speak French to tourists, etc. I am sure there are many more examples

You earlier said:

they seem to value their "French-ness" over and above what things cost.

Sure, your reply is accurate but not to the extent of "over and above what things cost". What's the evidence for the "over and above" extent?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You earlier said:



Sure, your reply is accurate but not to the extent of "over and above what things cost". What's the evidence for the "over and above" extent?

Everyone knows what it means…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Everyone knows what it means…

I think everyone does if they understand the French.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

One small problem with your thesis re "civil servants" - High Speed Two (HS2) Limited is the company responsible for developing and promoting the UK’s new high speed rail network. It is funded by grant-in-aid from the government.

HS2 Ltd is an executive non-departmental public body; it's run by these people, none of whom are Civil Servants...

I know what HS2 Ltd is, Hugh. The point is, they were appointed to carry out the project. But all contracts let by the government should be monitored to ensure they meet performance targets. The civil servants are responsible for that.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know what HS2 Ltd is, Hugh. The point is, they were appointed to carry out the project. But all contracts let by the government should be monitored to ensure they meet performance targets. The civil servants are responsible for that.

The civil servants can monitor it but I doubt they're able to ensure construction projects don't go over budget due to inflation, unexpected issues, government constantly changing its mind, etc.

[Pierre]

It’s like when Man Utd or City make a bid for a lower league player, you can add another zero to the price tag.

Government projects = government money = taking the piss.

If it was a private investment scheme there would be more accountability and it would come in closer to budget.

But you would never get private investment in HS2 because it would never return on its investment because it was never needed.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I know what HS2 Ltd is, Hugh. The point is, they were appointed to carry out the project. But all contracts let by the government should be monitored to ensure they meet performance targets. The civil servants are responsible for that.

One has to wonder why the Secretaries of State for Transport (seven in the last thirteen years), Ministers, Parliamentary Under Secretaries, Non-Executive Board Members, SPADs (all political appointees) never picked up on any of the problems?

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s like when Man Utd or City make a bid for a lower league player, you can add another zero to the price tag.

Government projects = government money = taking the piss.

If it was a private investment scheme there would be more accountability and it would come in closer to budget.

But you would never get private investment in HS2 because it would never return on its investment because it was never needed.

One of the problems according to the people who did HS1 was that the budget was announced so companies tendering had an idea of how much they could fleece the government for.

As for private investment, that's why the Government should do private infrastructure projects. If you evaluate each single project on how much return on investment you'll get from that specific project then nothing with the long-term in mind would ever get built.

[ianch99]

Interesting article on Spain's HS rail network:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-peoples-lives

The country has managed to build itself the longest high-speed rail network in Europe and the second longest in the world, now spanning approximately 2,500 miles (4,000km) (and still expanding). By way of comparison, France has built 1,740 miles (2,800km), and Britain – still coming to terms with its latest high-speed fiasco – 68 (110km).

So how did Spain get it right? European Union funding was certainly a gamechanger. It was available to other countries too, but Spain was particularly effective in using it for infrastructure. The country has spent around €57.2bn in building its network, with one in four euros coming from EU funding. It still required a strong public commitment of both funds for construction and to subsidise low prices. Private companies didn’t enter the picture until the service was reliable and extensive. The railway network is still in public hands.

Construction costs were lower than in Britain, partly because of lower population density. You don’t have to displace communities in the almost empty plains that many trains run through. Nevertheless the mountainous terrain means some routes have proved to be costly and have also experienced significant delays.

This disproves the old trope that Public ownership means more money and minimal progress.

[richard-john56]

We are so back ward thinking in this country for instance I live 4 miles from HS1 and this does not stop at Ebbsfleet or Ashford International stations at the moment for some reason ... we also have an airport called Manston in the Thanet area, East Kent which should be have been developed and have a high speed link to the HS1 line.