Why do stations cost so much to build?

[notlob.divad]

For a comparison for how it can be done, (admittedly different country so different labour rates): Yesterday 10/12/2017, my new closest railway station opened, along with its neighbour down the line. Gdynia Karwiny and Gdynia Stadion both received their first passengers. Both stations follow the same designs as the others along the line with two platforms on the outside of the tracks with passenger shelters.

Karwiny is in a deep cutting on a curve and required an interweave track to allow oversized freight to pass the new platform. Stadion is on an embankment between the football stadium and the new office blocks. I each case significant earth movements where required to create the base for the platforms and the track was lifted and relaid. Work was undertaken mainly during daylight hours with some disruption to trains as the route became single bi-directional track firstly on one side then the other, whilst the platform face work and new underpass work took place.

Neither station has car parking facilities, but do have bike racks and public transport access. Full disabled access is available via lifts from street level to all platforms. Total cost of the two stops is around 25 Million PLN, or around 5.2 Million GBP at today's exchange rate. Sadly the project overran by 5 months due to poor (frozen) ground conditions last winter.

Photographs for anyone interested care of SSC. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=429764&page=1086

 

[Tio Terry]

Just for clarification it's no longer DDA, it's now Equalities Act, but even that is not applicable to railway stations. It's the Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Standard for Interoperability that applies. This also fulfills the requirements of the Equalities Act.

 

[cuccir]

For a comparison for how it can be done, (admittedly different country so different labour rates) Total cost of the two stops is around 25 Million PLN, or around 5.2 Million GBP at today's exchange rate.

Interesting comparison.

The GDP per capita of Poland is around 30% of that of the UK. These stations cost around £5.62m, whereas Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge were £16m (this was quoted upthread as for Kirkstall Forge, but research suggests (eg 1,2,3)that this was the total cost for both). This leaves the Polish stations at around 37% of the cost of the British stations.

Now this is not a systematic sample, and GDP does not necessarily equate to costs. But even then, as a very quick and rough set of calculations it would suggest that the British stations are not particularly bad value given the higher costs of labour, materials, design that you'd incur here.

 

[Mikey C]

Isn't everything in this country ridiculously expensive now. Liverpool FC's new stand cost £115m for example. £323m has been spent on converting the Olympic Stadium into a lousy football ground.

On the roads, a minor improvement to the M25/A13 junction (which involved no new bridges/flyovers) cost £79m. Indeed when you consider that the core of the Motorway network was built in the 60s and 70s, can you imagine how expensive the M1, M4, M5 and M6 would be today!

 

[DarloRich]

Isn't everything in this country ridiculously expensive now. Liverpool FC's new stand cost £115m for example. £323m has been spent on converting the Olympic Stadium into a lousy football ground.

On the roads, a minor improvement to the M25/A13 junction (which involved no new bridges/flyovers) cost £79m. Indeed when you consider that the core of the Motorway network was built in the 60s and 70s, can you imagine how expensive the M1, M4, M5 and M6 would be today!

And I wonder what the healthy and safety standards were like in the 1960's. I wonder how many people went home with bits missing or, simply didn't go home at all. argh.

For a comparison for how it can be done, (admittedly different country so different labour rates): Yesterday 10/12/2017, my new closest railway station opened, along with its neighbour down the line. Gdynia Karwiny and Gdynia Stadion both received their first passengers. Both stations follow the same designs as the others along the line with two platforms on the outside of the tracks with passenger shelters.

Karwiny is in a deep cutting on a curve and required an interweave track to allow oversized freight to pass the new platform. Stadion is on an embankment between the football stadium and the new office blocks. I each case significant earth movements where required to create the base for the platforms and the track was lifted and relaid. Work was undertaken mainly during daylight hours with some disruption to trains as the route became single bi-directional track firstly on one side then the other, whilst the platform face work and new underpass work took place.

Neither station has car parking facilities, but do have bike racks and public transport access. Full disabled access is available via lifts from street level to all platforms. Total cost of the two stops is around 25 Million PLN, or around 5.2 Million GBP at today's exchange rate. Sadly the project overran by 5 months due to poor (frozen) ground conditions last winter.

Photographs for anyone interested care of SSC. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=429764&page=1086

Poland? I wonder how different the regulatory framework surrounding such works is and how the HSEA rules differ or perhaps more pointedly how those rules are applied. How, for instance, do they discharge their CDM alike responsibilities?

I would love to be able to get access to this kind of information and really compare like with like and cost for cost. Anecdotally from Polish colleagues their response to HSEA in particular is often: it isnt like this at home

 

[najaB]

And I wonder what the healthy and safety standards were like in the 1960's. I wonder how many people went home with bits missing or, simply didn't go home at all. argh.

Related fact: 73 workers died during the construction of the Forth Bridge which opened in 1890, seven workers died during the construction of the Forth Road Bridge which opened in 1964 and one worker died during construction of the Queensferry Crossing which opened in 2017.

 

[DarloRich]

Related fact: 73 workers died during the construction of the Forth Bridge which opened in 1890, seven workers died during the construction of the Forth Road Bridge which opened in 1964 and one worker died during construction of the Queensferry Crossing which opened in 2017.

surely not...................................................

( and 1 is still 1 to many)

 

[Old Yard Dog]

I get the impression the provisions for things like accessibility and parking add a lot on to the designs of modern stations. If you compare somewhere like Kirkstall Forge with the WY Metro stations from the 80s, it's just a world of difference - Cononley cost £34,000 (according to Wikipedia), Kirkstall cost £16m. But you can tell when you look at the designs of the sites that one would have to have cost a lot more. If you tried sticking up two basic platforms and a bus shelter on each, you'd have various campaign groups on your doorstep wanting your head - and I can entirely understand a lot of that, especially from an accessibility perspective. It has killed off a lot of potential openings, though

I suspect the peak for openings has long passed, even taking into account an eventual potential reversal of cutbacks to infrastructure spending. I know WYCA aren't planning on many more and see the West Yorks network as virtually full to capacity as far as stations go now

According to Branch Line News, North Yorkshire Council's Craven Area Committee has decided to abandon plans to re-open Crosshills station (between Keighley and Skipton) as the cost has risen to £14M - £23M, due partly to signalling changes required for the nearby Kildwick level crossing.

 

[eastdyke]

According to Branch Line News, North Yorkshire Council's Craven Area Committee has decided to abandon plans to re-open Crosshills station (between Keighley and Skipton) as the cost has risen to £14M - £23M, due partly to signalling changes required for the nearby Kildwick level crossing.

This report appeared in the Craven Herald & Pioneer 10th November:
http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/...l_made_for_site_to_be_safeguarded_for_future/
Extracts:

It comes as North Yorkshire County Council has backed down from spending an estimated £14 million on the project which initially was expected to cost between £6.5 million and £9 million.

North Yorkshire County Council business and investment officer, Graham North said a feasibility study was too costly when the "60 percent optimism bias" which had to be added brought the cost to about £23 million.
As well as the construction of the station, the signalling would also have to be changed because the platform would be close to the level crossing.
He said further investigation would be taking place looking at the possibility of reducing the level crossing barrier "down time" to improve the waiting time for traffic to cross.
Network Rail was carrying out re-signalling work along the network which was hoped to be completed by 2020 and could help reduce barrier down time, he said.

 

[CardiffKid]

Going slightly off topic here but a new Station is planned for the East of Cardiff which is to be paid for by the private sector and is intended to open in February 2020.

It will be interesting to see if it's finished on time and on budget.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

And there's another reason - public outrage at the rail system's inability to deal with public stupidity has driven level crossing safety requirements (and the cost of said) through the roof ... but only if you're changing things:

I present http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-jumps-red-light-at-level-1112447 a common or garden CCTV crossing with a history. NR will now be forced to fix, enhance and beatify this thing, and the cost of doing so is obviously considerable. So why not put the station somewhere else?

 

[tbtc]

Isn't everything in this country ridiculously expensive now. Liverpool FC's new stand cost £115m for example. £323m has been spent on converting the Olympic Stadium into a lousy football ground.

On the roads, a minor improvement to the M25/A13 junction (which involved no new bridges/flyovers) cost £79m. Indeed when you consider that the core of the Motorway network was built in the 60s and 70s, can you imagine how expensive the M1, M4, M5 and M6 would be today!

True.

Everything in this industry costs significantly more than it did a generation ago.

BR could do things cheaply and simply, but BR didn't have to worry about sustainability or today's safety regulations... it was a different world.

Public Inquiries used to be a "once in a blue moon" thing, but now we have investigations into almost everything. Things are more complicated, things have to be done properly, risk assessments and layers of paperwork. Not just on the railway but with any infrastructure project.

Accessibility, safety... the world is more complicated.

Maybe this thread will be worth coming back to next time someone trots out the line that "BR managed with a subsidy of x whilst the greedy private railway needs three times the subsidy" (or whatever skewed figure, which will inevitably ignore inflation).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

surely not..........( and 1 is still 1 too any)

Indeed

Related fact: 73 workers died during the construction of the Forth Bridge which opened in 1890, seven workers died during the construction of the Forth Road Bridge which opened in 1964 and one worker died during construction of the Queensferry Crossing which opened in 2017.

An extremely telling statistic.

I admit I am one to whine we "Seem to go overboard" on Health and Safety - but human lives matter - after all that is why railways are great compared to roads. Modern attention to Health and Safety is a great thing indeed.

 

[Mikey C]

I guess the problem is that we expect much higher standards of H&S, more concern for environmental protection, protection of our heritage etc BUT the net result is that everything then becomes so expensive making it really hard to build anything.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I guess the problem is that we expect much higher standards of H&S, more concern for environmental protection, protection of our heritage etc BUT the net result is that everything then becomes so expensive making it really hard to build anything.

Unless it is a road- sorry - could not resist.

 

[InOban]

And if it's not built, people have little option but continue to use the road, causing more health, safety and environmental damage which doesn't get accounted for in the cost/benefit analysis.

 

[bluenoxid]

This report appeared in the Craven Herald & Pioneer 10th November:
http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/...l_made_for_site_to_be_safeguarded_for_future/
Extracts:

To be honest the best solution is to put in a road overbridge like they said that they would love to do for a good 30+ years. Sadly, they are the wrong side of the county border so no bridge and no station.

 

[snowball]

Unless it is a road- sorry - could not resist.

If like me you were a regular reader of a roads discussion site, you'd find it full of complaints this one, posted today:

I’ve said things on a similar note before, but governments in Britain have proven themselves completely averse to building proper roads.

or this one, posted by a different person a few days ago:

After all, this is Britain, where we are seeming averse to building proper roads.

 

[notlob.divad]

Poland? I wonder how different the regulatory framework surrounding such works is and how the HSEA rules differ or perhaps more pointedly how those rules are applied. How, for instance, do they discharge their CDM alike responsibilities?

I would love to be able to get access to this kind of information and really compare like with like and cost for cost. Anecdotally from Polish colleagues their response to HSEA in particular is often: it isnt like this at home

It is a fair enough point. Having passed the site of 1 of these new stations several times a week for the last 8 months, and with a decent knowledge of CDM regulations from my jib, there was nothing that stood out as unsafe. There where times that perimeter fencing was a bit lacking at times.

As for the paper work side I don't know what the regulations are or how well adhered to it was on this particular project. However H&S protections are EU wide, much to our Brexiteer friends disgust.

There have been no reports of casualties unlike the adjacent office build where there has been 1 fatality over the summer, (despite appearing from the outside to be a safer site)

From my experience here, H&S isn't perfect but it is getting better at a rapid ratecosts and reis much better than that shown by thr English scaffolders and roofers who replaced the rook on my UK house earlier this year. Either way even if H&S does increase costs marginally I refuse to believe that it does by the 3 fold factor refered to here.
I accept labour cost difference will be significant but I believe the biggest point which has been alluded to above is the consultation costs and re-design costs. Here they have used a pretty standard design that has been replicated again and again with the smallest changes possible at each site. In the UK ever station for some reason needs to be bespoke. Also the only significant consultation is do you think there should be a new station to this design. Everyone says yes seeing the benefits of extra connectivity and they crack on.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If like me you were a regular reader of a roads discussion site, you'd find it full of complaints this one, posted today:
or this one, posted by a different person a few days ago:

That's what I love about Internet discussion boards - you tend to get all sides of the story which is a good thing.

 

[furnessvale]

That's what I love about Internet discussion boards - you tend to get all sides of the story which is a good thing.

I was once banned from an anti fuel tax board for politely countering the arguments the posted to reduce or even abolish road fuel duty.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I admit I am one to whine we "Seem to go overboard" on Health and Safety - but human lives matter

Yes, they're about £1.898m each - https://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysi...ions/taking-safe-decisions-safety-related-cba

 

[Railsigns]

Fragmentation doesn’t help obviously, but many of such meetings would have taken place under BR, just that they would be with internal BR departments.

Under BR though, everyone was pulling in the same direction.

 

[30907]

And there's another reason - public outrage at the rail system's inability to deal with public stupidity has driven level crossing safety requirements (and the cost of said) through the roof ... but only if you're changing things:

I present http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/driver-jumps-red-light-at-level-1112447 a common or garden CCTV crossing with a history. NR will now be forced to fix, enhance and beatify this thing, and the cost of doing so is obviously considerable. So why not put the station somewhere else?

They haven't done anything obvious in the 5 years since the incident!
And there is no obvious alternative for a station at Crosshills (unless you go for a greenfield site on the curve west of the road bridge).
BTW the reason Cononley reopened as early as 1988 and cost so little was because the platforms were still there - they've had to be raised since.

 

[3141]

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

​

​

You objected to “most” of my post ?? Did you really object that I’d pointed out that one reason for high costs of new stations is meeting disability access requirements? To my statement that (as reported ) Railtrack’s original programme for reconstructing Haddenham and Thame Parkway would have been more costly and more disruptive? To the examples of new platforms built economically of concrete trestles and slabs? To the very high estimate for surfacing a car park that isn’t next to the railway and doesn’t require special safety precautions?

But you work for NR, I believe.

 

[Mikey C]

Unless it is a road- sorry - could not resist.

Exactly the same issues apply to road building as to railway developments.

The elevated Motorways through the Midlands, the Westway and Chiswick flyovers etc would never be accepted nowadays. Similarly, the destruction caused by the Victorian railways would never be accepted. Can you imagine someone building a railway on a viaduct right next to a cathedral (as is the case with Southwark Cathedral) or allowing railways to run along scenic river valleys or the Devon coast like they did then

 

[cuccir]

I believe the biggest point which has been alluded to above is the consultation costs and re-design costs. Here they have used a pretty standard design that has been replicated again and again with the smallest changes possible at each site. In the UK ever station for some reason needs to be bespoke. Also the only significant consultation is do you think there should be a new station to this design. Everyone says yes seeing the benefits of extra connectivity and they crack on.

Again, an interesting insight. I suppose a counterpoint would be: given that it is affordable for us (the UK is the world's 5th biggest economy!), don't we want a country of interesting buildings, designed to last, that include elements of innovative or interesting architectural design that might make our communities a bit more lively?

One point about a lot of construction from the 1940s-1970s, when we built things much more cheaply, is that we've now had to spend more money taking these buildings down or renovating them - look at the work that has had to be done to fix Kings Cross and Euston in recent years!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The elevated Motorways through the Midlands, the Westway and Chiswick flyovers etc would never be accepted nowadays.

Nor would the M6 through the Lune Gorge I hope?

 

[DarloRich]

You objected to “most” of my post ?? Did you really object that I’d pointed out that one reason for high costs of new stations is meeting disability access requirements? To my statement that (as reported ) Railtrack’s original programme for reconstructing Haddenham and Thame Parkway would have been more costly and more disruptive? To the examples of new platforms built economically of concrete trestles and slabs? To the very high estimate for surfacing a car park that isn’t next to the railway and doesn’t require special safety precautions?

But you work for NR, I believe.

You can build platforms like that. Go and have a look at the platform extensions at Peterborough for a modern interpretation. The problem with the mini brick piers and timber boards ( unlike at Haddenham and Thame Parkway which assume is precast concrete sheets) is that they don't always last very long and have a greater maintenance bill in both cost and time, especially as they get older. Wood tends to go a bit soft as it gets old, especially that plyboard stuff. As soon as the weathering cover fails the timber is finished. I can, rightly, imagine your outcry if someone fell through the platform!

The concrete pre cast lasts a bit longer but has a finite life and any damage is very hard to fix without taking out the whole panel which in a live railway environment isnt as easy as it sounds! It can be a brittle substance, especially the older the item. it is fine for quiet wayside stations but not somewhere really busy. it is also a pita to man handle into position ( damn those HSEA regs!) These days you would use prefabriacted sections and just assemble the platform in situ like Lego.

You wouldn't be able to build that wonderful station at Haddenham and Thame Parkway like that now. The ramps look overly steep and long and lack a rest landing. OF COURSE The disability access requirements are a large part of the cost but not the only cost. They pale into insignificance when you consider work to move the track and especially any signalling. I also point out, above, some other reasons for the costs in particular constant consultation with interested stakeholders.


BTW: ALL works require "special" safety precautions to ensure that the poor sods doing the work actually go home at the end of the day. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you. It does to me. If that means putting a proper cabin in so blokes can have a brew and dry out and warm up during a break then so be it. Beyond that for car parks, yes you could chuck down a load of tarmac and leave it. You will be back very quickly to put it right, then back again and again. OR you can try and do the job right. That means taking everything away and starting again with a proper base level, especially if there are pot holes and puddles in the existing surface. Yes you can save money up front like that but you lose it all in remedial works. Your call.

 

[DarloRich]

It is a fair enough point. Having passed the site of 1 of these new stations several times a week for the last 8 months, and with a decent knowledge of CDM regulations from my jib, there was nothing that stood out as unsafe. There where times that perimeter fencing was a bit lacking at times.

As for the paper work side I don't know what the regulations are or how well adhered to it was on this particular project. However H&S protections are EU wide, much to our Brexiteer friends disgust.

There have been no reports of casualties unlike the adjacent office build where there has been 1 fatality over the summer, (despite appearing from the outside to be a safer site)

From my experience here, H&S isn't perfect but it is getting better at a rapid ratecosts and reis much better than that shown by thr English scaffolders and roofers who replaced the rook on my UK house earlier this year. Either way even if H&S does increase costs marginally I refuse to believe that it does by the 3 fold factor refered to here.
I accept labour cost difference will be significant but I believe the biggest point which has been alluded to above is the consultation costs and re-design costs. Here they have used a pretty standard design that has been replicated again and again with the smallest changes possible at each site. In the UK ever station for some reason needs to be bespoke. Also the only significant consultation is do you think there should be a new station to this design. Everyone says yes seeing the benefits of extra connectivity and they crack on.

I am not having a go at the Polish people - I would love some detailed cost analysis and sharing of best practice/ lessons learnt. I guess a unified system helps no end!

The consultation issue is a big one as there are so many fingers in so many pies! Stakeholder engagement and stakeholder requirements are 2 of the hardest tasks to complete. It can be a repeating nightmare

(As an aside I find there is a great difference in HSEA approach between domestic contractors and professional contractors)