Over-Engineered Spec off the Rails at High Speed Gold-Plating

HS2. A byword for rank spec stupidity. From the nation that changed the world with the invention of the train, an abject lesson in how not to specify large projects.

In a hotly contested field, this current British shocker elbows its disgraceful money-burning way towards the country's worst.

Think things couldn't fall any lower after the risible, and since wholly snubbed by its intended occupants, £100m bat tunnel? Actual cost of that 'Sheephouse Wood Bat Mitigation Structure' now said to be £216m. Prepare for more tears.

In a country that just blew £180m on thin air. Mooted tunnel under Stonehenge disappears into someone's pockets without a stroke to show. As the ol' gag goes, 'I'd've done that at twice the speed for half the cash'.

This rail case study in how not to procure for generations to come may yet go un-cited though. As the lines between vested selling interests and cushy buyer pensions get exposed as allegedly blurred through perhaps more incompetence than corruption to the point of evaporation.

I routinely walk around the walled-off perimeter at the present northern terminus of this mega construction project. I hear supervisors for prolonged gatherings in adjacent coffee shops ordering the Big Boss Breakfasts and seemingly talk of precious little beyond trying to out-banter their workmates. I see workers wander from the site to stand in line still wearing their expensive hi-vis site wear for nearby food bank parcels to put in their flashy gorpcore designer backpacks. I smell the stench of doing the bare minimum to get by as workers stand around chatting more than putting any effort in.

The malaise afflicting laying track is mirrored with rolling stock. Of course it is. And this all before the spiteful Unions get their claws in to operations.

Earlier in March London's The Times revealed;

"... a £2 billion contract to build dozens of “bullet trains” for HS2 would have to be changed because the trains were too long. The number of trains required would also need to be reduced."

Trains speced too long. How on earth?

Their number reduced? Yet price-per-train will surely, ahem, rocket.

Then read how shaving a single mile-per-hour off the top speed could save a billion quid.

Maybe slash a 100mph off and then the whole thing costs zero, hey.

Testing prior opening? Oh, that can't be done without adding even more costs and delay. You see, can we really afford to build the dedicated testing track required? Best ship the bullet trains to China, where they've such track.

Incredible.

Follies of this project are legion. Learnings abound for our arena.

I'm not really a fan of the big formal bid these days. I often bring the bad news to clients of mine on this front.

"Did you set the spec?"

Crestfallen, their shoulders often drop. If you didn't influence the spec, you won't ever win it.

Yet still some pursue. And sadly my experience gets proven once again.

Project creep of this sorry infrastructure's tale only ever benefits the incumbent providers with their feet snugly under the table already. Buyer heads seldom roll.

One particular point to note though, is one of over-engineering. Specifically, not to confuse this with future-proofing. They are separate.

For reasons of vanity, many a spec was set at highest possible.

Fastest speed, longest trains, biggest fleet.

Needlessly, obvs. Known today as 'gold plating'. A phrase you can readily introduce when apt.

A safety buffer can be built-in. But works best when you show the prospect the options, with the absolute max exposed as unnecessary. When, as often is the case, competition push that upper ceiling, you ought prevail.

And avoid that trip to China.