Why is high speed rail in the UK so expensive to construct?

[Ianno87]

.
Manchester Airport HS2 station might be in the same category.

Wouldn't have thought so - it'll supplant the "M60 Parkway" role that Stockport currently provides.

 

[edwin_m]

SNCF were bounced into building a number of new TGV stations, mostly very basic ones in the middle of nowhere, to satisfy the locals who were being by-passed.
They get say 2-3 services a day, are poor economic performers, eat up capacity and decrease the value of the new line to long-distance passengers.
Ebbsfleet and Ashford (Eurostar) aren't quite in that category, but they are not stellar performers on HS1.
Manchester Airport HS2 station might be in the same category.
Would a "Chiltern Parkway" have made any difference to the opposition to HS2?
The other interesting location would be where HS2 crosses EWR at Calvert.
The government might be persuaded to build a Milton Keynes-sized town at the junction, which would equally appall Bucks residents.

Could they have built a parkway station near Aylesbury Vale Parkway station which is very close to HS2? The existing Aylesbury Vale Parkway station could have been re sited to be a part of the HS2 station or connected to the HS2 station by some sort of people mover.

A Chiltern station would be similar to the French "Gares des Bettraves" in many ways, but on an even busier line than Paris-Lyon. Basically every train that stops will need a second empty path to accelerate back into, unless about every third train stops in which case the departing train can use the path vacated by the next arriving one (the solution they use in Japan I believe). It's highly likely that anyone at Oxford or MK would be better accessing HS2 northwards at Birmingham, so the connectional possibilities are rather limited. The main market would be a few highly privileged London commuters, most of whose seats would then be empty to/from further north.

Whenever this topic comes up I feel obliged to make a suggestion, fairly much tongue in cheek, to put a Heathrow replacement airport here, midway between London and Birmingham and with the flightpath not overflying many urban areas. This would be a good reason to build a station but would no doubt appall the residents even more.

 

[coppercapped]

A Chiltern station would be similar to the French "Gares des Bettraves" in many ways, but on an even busier line than Paris-Lyon. Basically every train that stops will need a second empty path to accelerate back into, unless about every third train stops in which case the departing train can use the path vacated by the next arriving one (the solution they use in Japan I believe). It's highly likely that anyone at Oxford or MK would be better accessing HS2 northwards at Birmingham, so the connectional possibilities are rather limited. The main market would be a few highly privileged London commuters, most of whose seats would then be empty to/from further north.

Whenever this topic comes up I feel obliged to make a suggestion, fairly much tongue in cheek, to put a Heathrow replacement airport here, midway between London and Birmingham and with the flightpath not overflying many urban areas. This would be a good reason to build a station but would no doubt appall the residents even more.

You are not alone in reaching this conclusion!

This is exactly what was suggested by the Roskill Commission in its search for the site of the third London Airport. It considered four sites (Cublington, Foulness, Nuthampstead in northeast Hertfordshire and Thurleigh in Bedfordshire.

It reported in 1971 and recommended Cublington/Wing as the site for the new airport. Flames promptly broke out all over the Home Counties and many years later the decision was made to use Stansted after a diversion via Foulness/Maplin.

Plus ça change...

 

[Class 170101]

Not just the Chilterns - remember almost the entire "inner London" route from Old Oak Common to West Ruislip was to be on the surface originally. There it was realised that for the cost and disruption of rebuilding numerous bridges and road junctions (including Hangar Lane gyratory) then you may as well pay a little bit more to stick the whole thing in tunnel to avoid it (and a side benefit of keeping the locals much happier)

I thought it was actually decided it was cheaper to tunnel this section than build it on the surface with all the issues you describe.

 

[Ianno87]

I thought it was actually decided it was cheaper to tunnel this section than build it on the surface with all the issues you describe.

I've a feeling that "cheaper" is actually a bit of an urban myth in this case. More "for a tiny bit more cost, avoid alot of hassle and local impact".

 

[175mph]

HS2 is unlikely to reach Manchester in my lifetime. I doubt it will reach further north in anybody on the forum's lifetime. What we're doing is building an overly elaborate London to Birmingham line with grandiose ambitions of going further which are being used to justify building it.

Well, I'm 29 in October, so don't you think that once I'm past the age of say 60, HS2 will reach any further north? Not every member of these forums is mid-aged or higher.

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester Airport HS2 station might be in the same category.

I would hope that eventually, once the desire for insane speed above all else is dealt with, that most trains would stop at Manchester AIrport station, it is potentially enormously useful.

The project seems to be a weird dichotomy of odd value engineering, like the obsession with only having six platforms at OOC [imposing serious dwell time restrictions on the rolling stock], and lots of largesse and somewhat odd routing choices in Phase 2.

I don't know what to make of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2021 ==

I've a feeling that "cheaper" is actually a bit of an urban myth in this case. More "for a tiny bit more cost, avoid alot of hassle and local impact".

I can very much believe that it was outright cheaper, tunneling is surprisingly affordable and, most importantly, relatively stable in costs these days.

I keep getting the nagging feeling we would have been better off if the scheme had just proceeded in tunnel straight from OOC to Birmingham Airport, the amount of rancour and political capital that could have been saved would be very useful moving forward, and I'm no longer convinced it would be significantly more expensive.

 

[SynthD]

The number of full scale fire fighting/evacuation chambers would be interesting. Does HS1 go from Stratford to Dagenham without one?

 

[Bevan Price]

Wouldn't it be necessary to stand at those locations a number of years ago as well to understand whether it is 'booming'? A lot of container freight now contrasts with a lot of different flows (eg coal, steel, oil etc) in the past.

Is the overall number of operational freight locomotives and length of those trains increasing or decreasing at the moment?

A lot of potential freight traffic has disappeared because a lot of UK manufacturing industry has either closed, or been sold / moved to overseas companies, partly because of cheaper labour costs. For example, the steel industry is a pale shadow of what it was 50+ years ago.

 

[philosopher]

I keep getting the nagging feeling we would have been better off if the scheme had just proceeded in tunnel straight from OOC to Birmingham Airport, the amount of rancour and political capital that could have been saved would be very useful moving forward, and I'm no longer convinced it would be significantly more expensive.

It would be one hell of a boring journey for passengers!

 

[HSTEd]

The number of full scale fire fighting/evacuation chambers would be interesting. Does HS1 go from Stratford to Dagenham without one?

You would require six or seven by my count, assuming you don't just have 500m open every 20km

Although what an evacuation chamber would look like when you could simply dig the tunnel bigger to accomodate equipment anywhere you like, is another question.

(Could probably go Barcelona Metro L9/10 style and use the biggest TBM available to have a concrete wall dividing one bore into two independent running tunnels, we have access to 17.5m diameter machines these days)

 

[Grumpy Git]

It would be one hell of a boring journey for passengers!

So is flying 95% of the time.

 

[Jozhua]

The government constantly wants to make amendments and redesigns to "reduce costs". Truthfully, the lack of commitment does more to increase costs than decrease them.

Boom/Bust cycles, generally hap-hazard planning and zero long term network strategy makes ramping up supply chains and sourcing skilled labour much more expensive.

Both of these points tie together. If we'd fully committed to the whole network in full, five years ago, we could have probably cut 1/3rd off the full capital cost of the project. (Going off the boom/bust cost increases for electrification) We'd have had more time to train apprentices, slowly ramp up production and give the supply chain the opportunity to work in the most optimal fashion. You have to see infrastructure as a production line, rather than as individual projects. You should aim for a certain amount of trackage per year, then divvy that up to various projects as required (e.g HS2, E-W-R, NPR, etc.)

Another failed attempt to cut costs was to force contractors to bear the risk of overruns, etc themselves. In reality this meant the bids were much more expensive and had less competition due to the extra risk. Metrolinx in Toronto has found that actually providing incentives to contractors, like on time bonuses, overall reduces cost/time overruns, making the projects cheaper.

Then you have land acquisition, NIMBYISM and the like.

HS2 is also more infrastructure heavy than most HSR projects outside of China. Remember that the TGV uses the standard rail lines to get to the city centre. ICE does something similar, relying on a lot of legacy infrastructure too. HS2 is going all in on high speed segregation, tunnelling what is essentially like another Crossrail, to increase capacity for the congested city approaches in London, Birmingham and Manchester. HS2 has also taken significant steps to reduce/offset the environmental impact of construction with re-wilding, tunnelling in the Chilterns to avoid sensitive habitats and NIMBY homeowners.

Speed has very little to do with it, many of the most expensive parts - tunnels and stations in city centres will be running at much lower line speeds anyway. 360kph was chosen because it was the best balance of price to performance for out in the countryside anyway. Ultimately you still have to build the same length of track, the cost difference of a new build 125mph, vs 200mph line is marginal.

Our schemes all end up enormously complex with huge numbers of moving parts, attempts to "save money" that actually cost money, endless revised schedules and redesigns and god knows what else.

To the point that HS2 now costs a comparable amount per route kilometer to the Ceneri Base Tunnel.

Yes, absolutely stupid attempts to save money!

 

[Ianno87]

The number of full scale fire fighting/evacuation chambers would be interesting. Does HS1 go from Stratford to Dagenham without one?

Off memory, you need them every 3.3km. Stratford-Dagenham definitely has several intermediate shafts.

 

[24Grange]

I'd love to know - how does HS2 benefit the people of Devon & Cornwall?

 

[zwk500]

I'd love to know - how does HS2 benefit the people of Devon & Cornwall?

By stimulating economic growth so the treasury has more tax receipts to fund government spending. At least, that's the theory...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'd love to know - how does HS2 benefit the people of Devon & Cornwall?

Part of the original plot for HS2 was the parallel investment in GW electrification (and elsewhere).
I think we can say that bit of the plan went off at half-cock.
Ministers keep saying that HS2 spend is independent of railway spend elsewhere.

The HS2 station at Old Oak Common will benefit GW passengers, with easier connections between the networks (including to Heathrow).

 

[SargeNpton]

It's perhaps a bit ironic, but HS1 and HS2 have suffered the backlash from the controversy caused by the motorway construction programme and the environmental movement it generated

The likes of the M40 and M11 went through nice countryside just outside London in a way that wouldn't be acceptable now, hence whereas the M40 was built cheaply across the Chilterns in the 60s, HS2 will use really expensive tunnelling. And even then, the surface sections are causing massive controversy and local anger

The M40 construction started in 1988; which was later than planned as some environmental protests caused delays.

 

[hwl]

The M40 construction started in 1988; which was later than planned as some environmental protests caused delays.

Big gap between Phase 1 London - Oxford (construction 1967-74) and Phase 2 Oxford - Birmingham construction and upgrade of London - Oxford (1987-1991).

The major construction work in the Chilterns was 1967-69

 

[Grumpy Git]

The M40 construction started in 1988; which was later than planned as some environmental protests caused delays.

The same protesters caused delays to the Winchester bypass construction and it was argued there should be a tunnel built instead of the massive cutting........................ years later it was agreed that a tunnel would have been the best solution! You only have to look at the "cut and cover" one on the A505 near Letchworth to see that.

 

[nw1]

HS2 includes a 15 kilometre tunnel through the Chiltern hills. The Chiltern hills aren't exactly a major mountain range even by UK standards and I always thought high speed railways could be built with steeper grades than railways built in the 19th century. How much of the construction of this tunnel is therefore there to appease local residents in the Chilterns rather than actual engineering needs?

I don't think it's just to "appease local residents", though that is a reasonable motive in itself for tunnelling. The Chilterns are a nice countryside area/AONB and a surface rail line would disrupt this significantly.

While I am generally a supporter of high-speed rail I would strongly support the idea of a Chiltern tunnel, even if it is more expensive. The similar - in terms of scenery impact - Hindhead road tunnel was also something that was absolutely the best idea, as opposed to destroying the scenery of the Devils Punch Bowl area by blasting a dual carriageway through it. And Twyford Down, which caused a lot of local controversy, I still maintain should have been done as a tunnel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2021 ==

Could they have built a parkway station near Aylesbury Vale Parkway station which is very close to HS2? The existing Aylesbury Vale Parkway station could have been re sited to be a part of the HS2 station or connected to the HS2 station by some sort of people mover.

That would potentially be a good idea, to provide links for onward travel from the dead-end Aylesbury branch, now the Milton Keynes extension has been binned. Aylesbury must be a good candidate for the largest town in the UK to be at the end of a dead-end branch - certainly southern England.

 

[zwk500]

That would potentially be a good idea, to provide links for onward travel from the dead-end Aylesbury branch, now the Milton Keynes extension has been binned. Aylesbury must be a good candidate for the largest town in the UK to be at the end of a dead-end branch - certainly southern England.

No it would destroy capacity on the most time-sensitive part of the journey. The best option for Aylesbury is to introduce the MK service as originally proposed.
Depending on how you define the population, Scarborough may well beat Aylesbury. That is if you aren't counting Portsmouth, as a city and quibble about whether it's the end of a branch or Main line.

 

[miami]

I'm more than willing to eat my hat in twenty years time!

Even if your anti-hs2 propaganda was right and the building stopped at Handforth, HS2 trains will still be running to Manchester, Glasgow etc in 10 years.

That would put you as a male age 77 or female age 79 for it to not fall in your expected lifetime.

It would be one hell of a boring journey for passengers!

Only if there's no 4g (5g, 6g, whatever)

That would potentially be a good idea, to provide links for onward travel from the dead-end Aylesbury branch, now the Milton Keynes extension has been binned. Aylesbury must be a good candidate for the largest town in the UK to be at the end of a dead-end branch - certainly southern England.

Extend the Aylesbury line along a second (lower) pair of tracks on the same alignment as HS2 (probably join at Quainton where the tracks are pretty much parallel), with the slow lines having platforms at Brackley, Southam, and joining the Kenilworth-Coventry line. Seems like a lot of money to satisfy very few people

But yes, a good use of the line would be a major new 4-6 runway airport at the HS2/EW rail junction, stopping every 3rd train on the high speed tracks, and replacing Birmingham, Heathrow and Luton airports.



To answer the original point though, doesn't the HS2 budget include stations and rolling stock that other HS line comparisions (in say Korea etc) don't. If you look at just the track cost, the costs come out similar.

 

[nw1]

Extend the Aylesbury line along a second (lower) pair of tracks on the same alignment as HS2 (probably join at Quainton where the tracks are pretty much parallel), with the slow lines having platforms at Brackley, Southam, and joining the Kenilworth-Coventry line. Seems like a lot of money to satisfy very few people

I didn't mean that: I meant (as the original poster did) have a new interchange station just north of Aylesbury which shares with HS2, so that people on the Aylesbury line can interchange with HS2. So the terminus of the Aylesbury line would now be the HS2 interchange; I wasn't suggesting provide a new semi-fast service from Kenilworth to London or something!

In fact seriously,siting it on the EWR link could make sense as it would then attract connectivity from Milton Keynes and Oxford, essentially serving as an MKC replacement on HS2. Such things are done on TGV lines in France - out of town stations apparently in the middle of nowhere but connected by bus or perhaps local rail to nearby large settlements.

 

[zwk500]

In fact seriously,siting it on the EWR link could make sense as it would then attract connectivity from Milton Keynes and Oxford, essentially serving as an MKC replacement on HS2. Such things are done on TGV lines in France - out of town stations apparently in the middle of nowhere but connected by bus or local rail to nearby large settlements.

MKC doesn't need an HS2 link because even with slightly more stops in the classic services it'll be faster to London, Birmingham and Manchester than it would via an interchange. There's a logic to a north Oxfordshire parkway type station, but the impact is massive for relatively small benefit. Especially as Oxford and Bicester both have good connections to London and Birmingham, and will have good connections to the WCML Classic once EWR opens.

 

[Mikey C]

I keep getting the nagging feeling we would have been better off if the scheme had just proceeded in tunnel straight from OOC to Birmingham Airport, the amount of rancour and political capital that could have been saved would be very useful moving forward, and I'm no longer convinced it would be significantly more expensive.

Tunnelling still has an impact on the residents above, as you need regular access points. There are lots of work sites along the tunnelled section between Ruislip and Great Missenden for example

Isn't there also a maximum length of tunnel you're allowed without having a parallel service tunnel, like the Channel Tunnel has?

 

[miami]

The point of HS2 is not stopping at intermediate stations. It's a 3rd pair of tracks for the WCML which bypasses stations like Watford, Milton Keynes and Rubby.

Having trains stop at Hicksville, Bucks completely removes the point.

Cost wise comparisons would be helpful to answer the original question.

Korea's Gyeongbu high-speed railway (2004-2015, 350km length, 350kph design) was about £15b in 2010 prices, but that

1) Didn't include stations
2) Didn't include rolling stock
3) Didn't include tracks into cities

HS2's is about £90b for 530km, about 4 times the price per km, but does include those - including remodelling of Euston, Picadilly, Crewe, Leeds, Sheffield, new stations at Totton, Birmingham (x2) and OOC.

 

[quantinghome]

Speed has very little to do with it, many of the most expensive parts - tunnels and stations in city centres will be running at much lower line speeds anyway. 360kph was chosen because it was the best balance of price to performance for out in the countryside anyway. Ultimately you still have to build the same length of track, the cost difference of a new build 125mph, vs 200mph line is marginal.

Tunnels in the 'country' sections are having to built with larger diameters due to the specified speed.

The project has also had to consider some pretty extraordinary measures for the earthworks to avoid the train speed approaching the ground surface wave velocity - which would create a kind a sonic boom effect in the soil. This particularly affects the route through the south Midlands where it passes over high plasticity clays. I don't know how this has been overcome but there was talk about excavating several metres of ground and replacing with a stiffer granular material, which would be a huge expense. Running at 300kph could eliminate the problem.

Then there are the tunnel approaches, where the excavation of large cuttings produces long term upward movement of the ground under the tracks. Over time this would cause problems with the vertical alignment as the track along the approach moves upwards but the tunnel doesn't move. Coupled with HS2's desire to minimise maintenance issues, this means doing some major ground improvement works to address the issue.

All these issues mean we end up doing lots of specialist civil engineering which costs a lot more.

I can't say whether these issues exceed the additional costs of silly contract strategies and failing to give confidence to the supply chain.

 

[nw1]

new stations at Totton, Birmingham (x2) and OOC.

Living in the Southampton area... if only

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2021 ==

MKC doesn't need an HS2 link because even with slightly more stops in the classic services it'll be faster to London, Birmingham and Manchester than it would via an interchange. There's a logic to a north Oxfordshire parkway type station, but the impact is massive for relatively small benefit. Especially as Oxford and Bicester both have good connections to London and Birmingham, and will have good connections to the WCML Classic once EWR opens.

So the 'classic' services will be retained by the sound of it - I think I was probably assuming that it would be reduced to essentially a London to Birmingham and Crewe semi-fast service, but using Pendolinos rather than standard EMUs.

 

[HSTEd]

Tunnelling still has an impact on the residents above, as you need regular access points. There are lots of work sites along the tunnelled section between Ruislip and Great Missenden for example

The impact of static access points that are points in the landscape is still a tiny fraction of that from a gigantic scar gouged across the landscape that makes substantial quantities of noise 36 times an hour, 16 hours a day.

Isn't there also a maximum length of tunnel you're allowed without having a parallel service tunnel, like the Channel Tunnel has?

Only if you have no vertical access shafts, which are obviously much cheaper to provide in Buckinghamshire than the middle of the Channel