Why do stations cost so much to build?

[Bletchleyite]

One thing I've learnt while progressively doing up my house is just how much building materials e.g. wood actually cost. It's all far more expensive than I ever thought.

If station platforms are say 240m long (for a 12x20m South East formation) I'm not surprised they're expensive.

 

[Hellzapoppin]

I strongly recommend that you don't espouse that view if you happen to come across any high output track renewals boys and girls, or the in house design groups, or anyone in maintenance.

Or any of the IP Construction team.

 

[daikilo]

I would expect "pure" building costs to be different for a station on an operating railway than one on a new line (say the Borders Railway). I would also expect big differences for car parking, access roads, electric power, communications etc depending on the location and solution adopted. For me, the question is whether new stations are now affordable on purely cash grounds?

I recognise that a new station can be a big contributor to solving other issues such as road raffic congestion, attractivity of new housing etc.

 

[matt_world2004]

Isnt a huge amount of the cost the fact that the building work takes place on an operational railway with limited . premium paid hours (Like weekends and overnight to work in)

 

[Gareth Marston]

I strongly recommend that you don't espouse that view if you happen to come across any high output track renewals boys and girls, or the in house design groups, or anyone in maintenance.

In terms of undertaking "Enhancements" which is what new stations fall under then I stand by that comment- its all outsourced as are a significant amount of Renewals - yes there are other areas which you mention that are not but we are still talking in the £ Billions that are spent on outsourcing each year.

 

[Ships]

I call it dumbsourcing - Network Rail does jack all in house despite the trauma of its creation and replacing Railtrack its still essentially a clearing house to hand contracts to private firms.

Please don't espouse this nonesense when you obviously have no clue.

 

[bspahh]

Well, if you don't use an architect who else would you use?

A butcher?

I was at a University where there was an undergraduate course in Architecture and another in Building Engineering. Where the architecture students would talk about space and light, the building engineers talked would talk about foundations, walls and the roof. If you have the budget to get a novel, inspiring design, then architects are great. If you want a cheap, practical building, then a building engineer is what you need.

 

[w1bbl3]

You need both, and yes I work in construction for a decent sized sub contractor.

Railway construction is expensive but then so is road construction. The costs are around interfacing with live infrastructure which you either can't disturb or have to minimise disruption of.

As a comparable the last new motorway services was Gloucester Gateway (2014( on the M5 between J12 and J11a, a fairly basic design of two unconnected service buildings on the north and southbound sides, total cost £40m. Prior to that was Cohbam services on the M25 and the sliproad package alone came in a £19m as part of £35m of motorway works and the single service building £40m, total cost £75m...

 

[Mugby]

I call it dumbsourcing - Network Rail does jack all in house despite the trauma of its creation and replacing Railtrack its still essentially a clearing house to hand contracts to private firms.

Please don't espouse this nonesense when you obviously have no clue.

Your response, Ships, suggests that you have inside knowledge of what goes on at Network Rail. Would you please elaborate?

 

[Elecman]

NR has its own Works Delivery organisations as well

 

[lincolnshire]

I don,t think the Network Rails Works Delivery unit would be able to build a station as they are not enough staff wise a big enough gang these days as against B. R days. It,s mostly small repairs etc they carry out on Network Rail Buildings, they didn,t even carry out refurbishments of signal boxes that all went out to contractors.
Don,t forget that back in B.R. days the Civil Engineers Department had the joiners, bricklayers, plumbers, painters, roofers etc, even had signwriters too. As in them days they had all the buildings to look after from stations to loco depots and goods warehouses and numerous buildings and all the office blocks that B.R. owned in them days before been sold off at the end of B.R>

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Isnt a huge amount of the cost the fact that the building work takes place on an operational railway with limited . premium paid hours (Like weekends and overnight to work in)

That was my thought too. I think HS2 stations will have a different cost structure

 

[Altfish]

Because expensive consultants and architects are, in some cases. brought in to input into the design.

More likely that consultants and architects/engineers are ignored.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Another consideration these days is the amount of heritage constraints on the railway, listed structures etc. For instance at St Pancras or on the recent electrification schemes and Ordsall Chord.
Going back a bit, the current Euston station was built for BR by Taylor Woodrow, who also built Terminal 1 at Heathrow around the same time (with design similarities).
Did we call that "privatisation"?
The world doesn't employ direct work forces any more (not just the railway).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I strongly recommend that you don't espouse that view if you happen to come across any high output track renewals boys and girls, or the in house design groups, or anyone in maintenance.

Or any of those "expensive consultants"; our fees for a complete station design are dwarfed by NR's project management costs, Schedule 4 and 8 payments to the TOCs, possession costs, contractor's prelims, land purchase, DNO costs and planning department fees.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

That was my thought too. I think HS2 stations will have a different cost structure

Yes, about double the NR equivalent cost.

 

[no commute yet]

Thinking about Middlewich, how much would a platform with a bus shelter type structure on it cost?

 

[DarloRich]

Sigh: The usual ill informed, moronic, wibble trotted out yet again. It seems pointless to try and educate the "experts" here. I wonder how many of them have any actual experience in this area.

I call it dumbsourcing - Network Rail does jack all in house despite the trauma of its creation and replacing Railtrack its still essentially a clearing house to hand contracts to private firms.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

 

[3141]

As part of the Total Route Modernisation of the Chiltern route (which wasn't 100% total) just one platform at Princes Risborough remained in use (the down platform) and the island platform was closed and the footbridge to it demolished (1987 I think). After privatisation when the line between there and Bicester was redoubled there was a delay in bringing a second platform into use, and it was reported that a new footbridge, with lifts which the previous one didn't have, would cost £100,000. I think you almost need an extra 0 on that amount today.

In the redoubling the existing single platform at Haddenham and Thame Parkway was rebuilt by cutting into the embankment on the SW side (it's now the down platform). My recollection is that the job was done in a closure of 17 days, but Adrian Shooter was reported saying that Railtrack originally had wanted to take months over it, which with compensation and additional alternative bus arrangements would have made it much more expensive. Doing the job quickly meant that the platform is built of precast trestles with slabs over the top, similar to the platform extensions on the West of England line to accommodate class 159s. Many newer platforms are now built much more solidly, but those cheaper versions work perfectly well.

Later, they built the new second platform at Haddenham and Thame (the up platform). It doesn't have a lift but it does have an extensive ramp structure which feels as if it goes on for miles.

Where I live at Overton, 70% of the car park - for about 120 cars - is on an area with a crumbling tarmac surface with potholes, much of which is privately owned. About ten years ago Network Rail quoted £700,000 to provide a new surface with proper drainage and lighting. The subsoil is chalk and the site is on a slope, so drainage is easy and soakaways straightforward to construct. So nothing has happened.

I think the main reason for the high costs of modern stations is the desire to build them to a very high standard, some of which is necessary to provide access for passengers with disabilities, while other factors are a kind of corporate grandeur, a category which includes the massive steelwork on the GWML electrification. .

 

[DarloRich]

I think the main reason for the high costs of modern stations is the desire to build them to a very high standard, some of which is necessary to provide access for passengers with disabilities, while other factors are a kind of corporate grandeur, a category which includes the massive steelwork on the GWML electrification. .

Another incorrect statement.

 

[najaB]

Another incorrect statement.

To be fair, it's not totally incorrect - the high-spec standards and DDA compliance do mean that stations cost more than they could. (Though neither is a bad thing!)

 

[DarloRich]

To be fair, it's not totally incorrect - the high-spec standards and DDA compliance do mean that stations cost more than they could. (Though neither is a bad thing!)

but compliance is not a choice. It is also worth noting that compliance now is a very different beast to when the quoted station were built. That is something few here seem to understand.

(it was more the final sentence of the quote post I was referring to. )

 

[jopsuk]

One thing I've learnt while progressively doing up my house is just how much building materials e.g. wood actually cost. It's all far more expensive than I ever thought.

If station platforms are say 240m long (for a 12x20m South East formation) I'm not surprised they're expensive.

I think this is worth highlighting- and remember that the high specification materials required for a station are going to be more expensive, in most cases, than what's suitable for a house. Much of the "stations are really expensive" viewpoint is simply not understanding how much even the materials, let alone the labour, costs, before even getting to the complexity of the live railway.

 

[najaB]

but compliance is not a choice. It is also worth noting that compliance now is a very different beast to when the quoted station were built. That is something few here seem to understand.

Agreed. That's why I said more than they 'could' rather than 'should'.

(it was more the final sentence of the quote post I was referring to. )

Indeed. That part was nonsense.

 

[3141]

but compliance is not a choice. It is also worth noting that compliance now is a very different beast to when the quoted station were built. That is something few here seem to understand.

(it was more the final sentence of the quote post I was referring to. )

OK, I put the bit that you've now explained you objected to in a provocative way, and I appreciate jopsuk's point in #53 that the materials for a station are different and probably more expensive than those for a house. My experience when I worked for a local government education department was that when we wanted new buildings or major refurbishment of existing ones, the authority's technical department came up with prices that reflected high specifications all round. Some of these could be justified on the grounds that school buildings get a high level of wear and tear and a higher initial capital cost can be offset by longer life and lower maintenance costs. Others were there because the architect liked the look of certain components that were more expensive than something else which would do the job equally well. One memorable example was when a landscape architect said "But I thought you'd like to have those materials." However, he hadn't offered an option and would have gone ahead with his version if we hadn't told him the price was unaffordable.

My impression is that organisations spending public money are easily tempted to say "this is how we think it should be done" instead of keeping within a budget. If there are good reasons why it should be done more expensively then the organisation responsible should engage with the client to discuss the options, or lack of them.

 

[3141]

Indeed. That part was nonsense.

Thanks, najaB. Can you explain why it's nonsense, because it sure looks as if what I said is a factor. Is it the whole concept of corporate grandeur that you disagree with or, just the suggestion that that played any part in the GWML fiasco?

 

[najaB]

Thanks, najaB. Can you explain why it's nonsense, because it sure looks as if what I said is a factor. Is it the whole concept of corporate grandeur that you disagree with or, just the suggestion that that played any part in the GWML fiasco?

The high spec steelwork on the GWML is specified to provide reliable operation of 140mph trains for 40 years plus. Sure they could have done it on a budget - that's worked out so well on the ECML hasn't it?

 

[DarloRich]

OK, I put the bit that you've now explained you objected to in a provocative way, and I appreciate jopsuk's point in #53 that the materials for a station are different and probably more expensive than those for a house. My experience when I worked for a local government education department was that when we wanted new buildings or major refurbishment of existing ones, the authority's technical department came up with prices that reflected high specifications all round. Some of these could be justified on the grounds that school buildings get a high level of wear and tear and a higher initial capital cost can be offset by longer life and lower maintenance costs. Others were there because the architect liked the look of certain components that were more expensive than something else which would do the job equally well. One memorable example was when a landscape architect said "But I thought you'd like to have those materials." However, he hadn't offered an option and would have gone ahead with his version if we hadn't told him the price was unaffordable.

My impression is that organisations spending public money are easily tempted to say "this is how we think it should be done" instead of keeping within a budget. If there are good reasons why it should be done more expensively then the organisation responsible should engage with the client to discuss the options, or lack of them.

To be fair I objected to most of the post but the last bit especially.

Your comparison with a school is not really fair and in any event touch on bad specification and bad contract management. The building and regulatory environments are very different.

Your school, for instance, isnt built at night, with a special digger, with trains wizzing past at 125 mph. It doesn't need a lift or bridge with ramps to allow people in wheelchairs to cross the main road to access either part of the campus ( usually) and it is most often built under standard construction rules and arrangements using standard labour techniques. You don't have to do months of community engagement and letter drops about your new school and listen to everyone in the world wibble on about their ideas for the school AND try to incorporate them in the design, you don't have to meet with schools 40 miles away and make sure they are happy with the design. You don't have to pay the school bus company for any disruption the construction of the new school might cause nor do you have to ensure an alternative road routing is available so that Smiths the Bakers can still get their flour every morning etc etc

Material cost is but a very small part of the bill.

 

[3141]

The high spec steelwork on the GWML is specified to provide reliable operation of 140mph trains for 40 years plus. Sure they could have done it on a budget - that's worked out so well on the ECML hasn't it?

Things don't have to be at one extreme or the other. It's a pity NR couldn't do it for the price they said it would cost. Or 1½ times that. Or 2x. But not so much more and still not enough to finish it. But we're getting away from the stations issue and also the more general question and onto a different specific subject.

 

[jopsuk]

I should be clear- whilst I think the the original post was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how much things actually cost, and there's many seem to accuse Network Rail etc of essentially "gold plating" schemes when that's not the case, I'm also fairly confident that more could be done to reduce costs in major infrastructure projects (rail and road) in the UK.