The struggling HS2 project has become a ‘casebook example’ of how not to run such a scheme, according to a committee of MPs.

The Public Accounts Committee, which has often criticised the management of HS2 in the past, said the Department for Transport and government development company HS2 Ltd had failed to work together effectively. HS2 now being run by its new chief executive Mark Wild, but he conceded at the end of last year that ‘the programme is in a very serious situation that requires a fundamental reset to enable it to be delivered to the lowest feasible cost’.

The Committee has also warned that what remains of the HS2 project is now a ‘reputational risk’ to the UK, and is urging the government to explain what taxpayers can now expect as a return on their investment. As a ‘fundamental reset’ had been prescribed by Mr Wild, the Committee said it would be seeking details of how improvements will be made.

However, it continues that ‘neither DfT nor HS2 Ltd currently have the skills or capabilities to make a success of the programme’, noting that gaps have emerged in the past concerning such things as risk management and assurance, project management and project controls.

It says it is ‘not convinced that DfT has sufficiently considered how it can bring fresh thinking to its own leadership of HS2, or whether it has the right skills and capabilitie to lead the programme effectively and credibly’.

Other unresolved matters include the plight of people who have been affected by the acquisition of their property. The Committee says people may welcome the opportunity to buy it back, but they have been waiting for answers ‘for years’. The report calls for such cases to be addressed ‘sympathetically and rapidly, particularly where this was someone’s home’.

Also on the Committee’s list of targets are Euston station and the now notorious bat tunnel, which runs for a kilometre and is costing £100 million, figures ‘which did not strike the right balance between protecting wildlife and the burden on the taxpayer’. Euston station plans now depend on a significant part being played by the private sector, but the Committee is ‘sceptical the private sector will come forward to the level required. In the meantime, local businesses, residents and passengers will continue to face significant disruption at Euston for many years to come.’

Total costs could now be approaching £80 billion, and the report is pessimistic about the likelihood of making significant savings.

Public Accounts Committee chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: ‘Our Committee has not made recommendations in our report on delivering better outcomes for HS2’s future passengers. We are long past that point. It is time to deal with HS2 as what it is – a cautionary tale that should be studied by future Governments in how not to run a major project. We are sceptical of Government’s ability to successfully deliver even a curtailed scheme, one which we already know will on its face bring very poor value for money. The question has instead become: what possible benefit can the Government now salvage for the taxpayer, from a mess that presents real risks to the UK’s overall reputation?

‘The Government must now look to future, and deliver on its responsibilities to Parliament and the wider public – through the lens of its accountability to the PAC.’

HS2 Ltd said that Mark Wild agreed with the Committee’s view that there had been a ‘failure in management’. It continued: ‘He is taking decisive action to get the project back on track at the lowest feasible cost. His fundamental reset is critical to ensure the successful delivery of HS2’s goals – driving economic growth and connecting our biggest cities with fast and reliable journeys.’

The High Speed Rail Group, which represents suppliers, said the report identified ‘the damaging consequences of government interventions of the last two years. Each and every change in scope has added to the delays and costs.’

The DfT has responded to the report by saying: ‘The continuously climbing costs of HS2 are completely unacceptable. That is why the government acted swiftly to get the project back under control by bringing new leadership to HS2 Ltd, directing the company to begin work on resetting culture, schedule and costs, and reinstating robust ministerial oversight.’

Readers’ comments

A basic flaw with the HS2 planning is the overspecification in terms of speed. Such speed maxima as 225mph are maybe justifiable in China, where journeys of 500 and more miles are commonplace, but wasted in a WCML context where most of its services are concentrated in journeys of 200 or fewer miles.south of Preston .Only Glasgow is far enough at 400 miles for this 225mph maximum, but is just one such service going to justify the considerable costs in the undulating stretch between Carnforth and Carstairs? Traditionally, the WCML was famed as Britain's premier mixed traffic route, while the ECML was the racetrack to the north. With hindsight, it may have been more cost effective to raise parts of the WCML south of Crewe to a more affordable speed maximum (the current version of Pendolino can reach 155 mph with suitable signalling ) incorporating capacity relief .The ECML conurbations, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Tyneside, Teesside, West Yorkshire are more spread out along the route so as to justify more emphasis on higher speeds from London .Together with kinder East Coast topography, the overall benefit / cost situation for the North - South situation could have been somewhat better. Fewer tunnels for a start.

David C. Smith, Bletchley, Milton Keynes

Do you have a comment on this story? Please click here  to send an email to Platform at Railnews.

Moderated comments will be published on this site, and may also be used in the next print edition.