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

[gallafent]

a boring journey

I see what you did there.

 

[swt_passenger]

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

No. For example, heading east from St Pancras the first HS1 intervention shaft is where the Canonbury curve meets the NLL.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also HS2 is intended to allow for speeds of up to 400km/h, despite literally nobody else designing for speeds greater than 350km/h due to the significant increase in costs (both for construction and maintenance) that comes with the increased speed.

There isn’t a significant increase in cost due to the speed.

Another difference between the UK and other countries is how costs are accounted for. Other countries conveniently hide costs elsewhere on the balance sheet.

This, in spades. Particularly Spain.

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

Better sit down and put your napkin on. The first contracts have been awarded...

Kier lands £50m HS2 phase 2a job

Kier has been awarded a £50m early works contract for phase 2a of HS2. The firm will carry out major highways works and utility diversions, as well as

www.constructionnews.co.uk

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

Something like only 20% of the journey time between Euston and Birmingham will have a ‘view’ from the window. Tunnels, cuttings, and sound barriers will be the other 80%.


One thing not mentioned so far is about the intensity of service on the line. With 18tph specified from Euston to Birmingham Interchange, that has caused the technical spec for everything under the rails to be much beefier than for lines in Spain (and most of France). Slab track throughought, for example, and much higher spec settlement allowances for any earthworks and structures.

.

 

[Jozhua]

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

Improves access to the North through Birmingham New St - this will also make it easier for tourists to visit by rail, so may help reduce congestion on roads or increase visitor numbers.

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.

I don't know how much of a difference 300 vs 360kph makes in regards to that. I have done some work with standing waves, so I'm aware they have specific frequencies, but this seems like something that could be overcome by using different types of sleepers. I'd assume whatever is going on would likely be to do with ground conditions in general, rather than a 60kph increase in speed. Unless you have an article for this, in which I probably won't eat my hat, but maybe chew one of the corners a bit

I think looking to minimise long term maintainence costs with some extra upfront capital cost is a good idea. It's much cheaper and less disruptive to do things before a line is in operation, especially as it will be so intensively used. Higher speeds may make it more susceptible to ground movement, but again, the difference between 300 and 360kph seems relatively small for increasing capital expense.

TLDR - I'm sure 360kph does increase capital costs somewhat, but planners looked at the best balance between cost/top speed before settling on this figure, so I'd assume the gains below that are marginal.

 

[JamesT]

I was under the impression that the issues with running a high speed were mostly around the resultant movement with ballasted track. Which is why HS2 has chosen to use slab track instead which doesn't have those issues.

 

[quantinghome]

I don't know how much of a difference 300 vs 360kph makes in regards to that. I have done some work with standing waves, so I'm aware they have specific frequencies, but this seems like something that could be overcome by using different types of sleepers. I'd assume whatever is going on would likely be to do with ground conditions in general, rather than a 60kph increase in speed. Unless you have an article for this, in which I probably won't eat my hat, but maybe chew one of the corners a bit

I think looking to minimise long term maintainence costs with some extra upfront capital cost is a good idea. It's much cheaper and less disruptive to do things before a line is in operation, especially as it will be so intensively used. Higher speeds may make it more susceptible to ground movement, but again, the difference between 300 and 360kph seems relatively small for increasing capital expense.

TLDR - I'm sure 360kph does increase capital costs somewhat, but planners looked at the best balance between cost/top speed before settling on this figure, so I'd assume the gains below that are marginal.

The speed of a surface wave (known as a Rayleigh wave) along the ground is simply a property of the ground and nothing to do with the track. Once the train exceeds around 70% of Rayleigh wave velocity the vibrations experienced by the trains and track will increase, and by several-fold if the train speed equals the Rayleigh wave velocity. This could have serious effects on the track components and could be a safety issue. The solutions are:

- Stiffen the track - slab track helps a bit, but not massively according to this paper: Railway Engineering-2017 railwayengineering.com doi: 10.25084/raileng.2017.0131 (ed.ac.uk)
- Increase the Rayleigh wave speed of the ground - various ways of doing it, none of them cheap.
- Reduce the speed of the train.

The problem is that Rayleigh wave velocity is not commonly assessed in ground investigations, and some of the geologies being crossed by HS2 had comparatively little data available when HS2's design speed was fixed, and I doubt much thought was given to the issue when the design speed was being thought about. Essentially it's about hitting a bit of a cliff edge effect in this aspect of the costs which may not have been appreciated when HS2's spec was first adopted.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Manchester Airport HS2 station might be in the same category.

I don't personally think it will. It serves the Wilmslow & Airport market, but is just closer to the Airport this time.

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

I feel like Stockport will still do a better job at that than Manchester Interchange.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I was under the impression that the issues with running a high speed were mostly around the resultant movement with ballasted track. Which is why HS2 has chosen to use slab track instead which doesn't have those issues.

Last time I looked, HS2 was going to use slab track in tunnels, and ballasted track in the open.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

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.

Oxford will have reasonable connections via XC to HS2 northbound at Birmingham Interchange, too, though how easy the transfer is from International rather depends on the mooted "Automated People Mover".

 

[BayPaul]

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

Others have mentioned the connections from Old Oak (and Birmingham) that will speed up some journeys, and add an awful lot of capacity to others, and the increased capacity in Birmingham New Street some of which may well be used for links to the South West. I think its also reasonable to say that no-one in Devon or Cornwall would think that we would have priority over the North for the next high speed line, but we do have a reasonable case for being the recipients of HS3 or HS4, so building HS2 moves us up the pecking order - if it is a massive success, then there will be a lot more push for building high speed connections to other corners of the land, including ours! Finally, whilst it might not be in the plans at present, I do think that eventually there will be a connection built from Curzon Street to the Cross Country line, which would most certainly benefit Devon and Cornwall, making a massive difference on journey times on Cross Country journeys.

Oh, and getting slightly more back on topic... part of the reason for the high cost is this attitude of a big project needs to benefit everyone, which leads to it trying to be a jack of all trades, and causing more redesigns and consultations and legal costs. Fortunately HS2 still seems to be mainly achieving its primary mission - and they haven't caved on pressure to build white elephant stations in the Cotswolds for example.

 

[Bald Rick]

Last time I looked, HS2 was going to use slab track in tunnels, and ballasted track in the open.

Phase 1 is all slab, and has been for as long as I can remember.

 

[6Gman]

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

And traffic which currently uses Wilmslow (and possibly Macclesfield to a degree).

 

[quantinghome]

Oxford will have reasonable connections via XC to HS2 northbound at Birmingham Interchange, too, though how easy the transfer is from International rather depends on the mooted "Automated People Mover".

Speaking of which, here's the latest plan

 

[nw1]

Something like only 20% of the journey time between Euston and Birmingham will have a ‘view’ from the window. Tunnels, cuttings, and sound barriers will be the other 80%.

Seems surprisingly low. While I strongly support a tunnel under the Chilterns to protect the Chilterns AONB, most of the route north of Aylesbury AFAIK is through fairly flat and sparsely-populated country, and not in a notably scenic area (though pleasant enough). I'd have thought north of the Chilterns they could get away with an 'open' line of the sort common on TGV routes in France (for instance if you do Paris Lyon or Paris Marseille you can see the scenery most of the time, apart from tunnels).

On the other hand some German lines have notably low stretches of seeing scenery. Karlsruhe-Stuttgart is a good example. But the Cologne-Frankfurt seems to have good views for much of the way, despite being in hilly terrain (topographically equivalent to, but less wild than, the Peak or Dartmoor for instance).

 

[Ianno87]

.

I feel like Stockport will still do a better job at that than Manchester Interchange.

You would disagree if (for example) you live on the south side of Altrincham.

 

[Bald Rick]

Seems surprisingly low. While I strongly support a tunnel under the Chilterns to protect the Chilterns AONB, most of the route north of Aylesbury AFAIK is through fairly flat and sparsely-populated country, and not in a notably scenic area (though pleasant enough). I'd have thought north of the Chilterns they could get away with an 'open' line of the sort common on TGV routes in France (for instance if you do Paris Lyon or Paris Marseille you can see the scenery most of the time, apart from tunnels).

On the other hand some German lines have notably low stretches of seeing scenery. Karlsruhe-Stuttgart is a good example. But the Cologne-Frankfurt seems to have good views for much of the way, despite being in hilly terrain (topographically equivalent to, but less wild than, the Peak or Dartmoor for instance).

It’s measured by time not distance. The first 16-7 minutes or so out of Euston to Great Missenden are entirely in tunnel or the two station boxes (save for the Colne valley viaduct, which you’ll be across in 40 seconds). As is most of the last 7-8 minutes from Interchange, assuming you don’t regard east Birmingham as ‘a view’. When you are at 350km/h, the intervening 110km takes about 20 minutes. And a fair bit of that is in cutting or tunnel.

 

[Irascible]

Improves access to the North through Birmingham New St - this will also make it easier for tourists to visit by rail, so may help reduce congestion on roads or increase visitor numbers.

Sorry, but that is an absurd stretch. I'd love to see those tourists faces when they realise they have to cram onto XC and subsequently realise it''ll be faster to go via London... they'll be on the M5 like usual.

I'm fully pro HS2, but also fully aware it's really going to do nothing directly for this area as is everyone else down here - ok the next phases will improve a short section of journey quite a distance away from the area, but I'd be interested to know what percent of travel in & out of Devon & Cornwall goes up there. No need to try and justify it, of course no project of this nature can work for everyone. I also don't think we're in a queue for HS4 - given the eye-watering costs of HS2 I hate to think what dodging all the AONBs on the way to Plymouth from just about anywhere would cost if it was done at 400kmh standards. Or to be honest, any standards better than the current route. Good luck tunneling through all that Dartmoor granite, too

--

That is a pity about the view, which presumably would be something of a standard for any new line. One of the attractions of rail travel is watching the world go by without acres of adjacent concrete...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Phase 1 is all slab, and has been for as long as I can remember.

Weren't HS2 Ltd looking at ballasted track in open sections as one of the possible cost-reduction options prompted by the Okervee review?
Presumably they decided not to change the spec.

 

[Bald Rick]

Weren't HS2 Ltd looking at ballasted track in open sections as one of the possible cost-reduction options prompted by the Okervee review?
Presumably they decided not to change the spec.

AIUI The Oakervee review did look at it, and quickly agreed with the original spec.

 

[mike57]

I would like to see what the cost projections are for 300, 350, and 400 kph. I personally dont think HS2 will ever strech far enough to make 400kph a necessity. To be honest 300kph would probably deliver what we need, Paris - Marseille is around 410miles (660km) and that takes just over 3 hrs at 300kph max and seems to have cornered the market. I cant see us ever having a 400 mile HS2+ route where 400kph would deliver some benefit, and in any case 300kph would be good enough even at this distance. China are looking at higher speeds, but their distances are much greater, their longest routes are currently well over 1000 miles.

It seems to me we have gone for a 'Rolls Royce' solution which has just added to costs in an already 'high cost' environment. Others have identified the causes of the high costs, but unless we can control them we will never get the infrastructure we need.

I have to say I was suprised at the route chosen, seemed to be less than optimal, but thats history now.

 

[Bald Rick]

Paris - Marseille is around 410miles (660km) and that takes just over 3 hrs at 300kph max and seems to have cornered the market.

When you say ‘cornered the market’, there are almost as many flights between Paris and Marseille as trains each day. Acknowledging that the trains have higher capacity.

Re the cost difference between 330/350/400 km/h - there’s little difference.

 

[quantinghome]

So in order of importance, my stab at answers to the original question are:

1. Building new routes into and stations in cities
2. Poor contract strategy
3. High rural land prices
4. General density of existing infrastructure and development throughout the country
5. General inefficiency of British civil engineering industry, exacerbated by govt indecision
6. Local environment / conservation mitigation including tunnels.
7. Higher spec for high frequency train service
8. Higher spec for aspirational 400kph top speed

 

[JamesT]

I would like to see what the cost projections are for 300, 350, and 400 kph. I personally dont think HS2 will ever strech far enough to make 400kph a necessity. To be honest 300kph would probably deliver what we need, Paris - Marseille is around 410miles (660km) and that takes just over 3 hrs at 300kph max and seems to have cornered the market. I cant see us ever having a 400 mile HS2+ route where 400kph would deliver some benefit, and in any case 300kph would be good enough even at this distance. China are looking at higher speeds, but their distances are much greater, their longest routes are currently well over 1000 miles.

It seems to me we have gone for a 'Rolls Royce' solution which has just added to costs in an already 'high cost' environment. Others have identified the causes of the high costs, but unless we can control them we will never get the infrastructure we need.

I have to say I was suprised at the route chosen, seemed to be less than optimal, but thats history now.

Pedantically, that's not entirely correct. Although the LGV Sud-Est (1981) and the LGV Rhône-Alpes (1994) are 300kph, the LGV Méditerranée (2001) is a 320kph line.
I would be very surprised if the French built any new significant lines at 300kph. Indeed, given their next generation of rolling stock (Avelia Horizon) is 350kph capable, they might consider higher linespeeds in future.

 

[Ianno87]

the LGV Méditerranée (2001) is a 320kph line.

As are the whole of LGV Est (Paris-Strasbourg), LGV Rhin-Rhone (Dijon-Mulhouse), and LGV Sud Europe-Atlantique (Tours-Bordeaux).

 

[nw1]

When you say ‘cornered the market’, there are almost as many flights between Paris and Marseille as trains each day. Acknowledging that the trains have higher capacity.

Re the cost difference between 330/350/400 km/h - there’s little difference.

An aside, but I'm surprised it's as little as 410 miles from Paris to Marseille, basically the same distance as London to Glasgow. I would have guessed over 500.

Amazing you can go from a northwest European maritime climate to a full-on Mediterranean climate in such a (relatively) short distance...

That said, I remember standing on the crest of the Pyrenees a few years ago and the 'find nearby cities' facility of the GPS device told me that Portsmouth was only five-hundred-and-something miles away, which surprised me - just making it into the list of 'nearby' cities (on a European scale).

 

[mike57]

Pedantically, that's not entirely correct. Although the LGV Sud-Est (1981) and the LGV Rhône-Alpes (1994) are 300kph, the LGV Méditerranée (2001) is a 320kph line.

When we went down to the south by train in 2019 we didnt exceed 300kph at any point, we were on a double decker TGV from Lille, I know LGV Est trains reach 320kph in places, do any trains on LGV Mediterranee exceed 300kph in normal service?

 

[nw1]

On the topic of LGV, does anyone know the recent (2018, 2019) frequency of TGVs on the Paris-Lyon stretch? Just wondering if that would be equivalent in terms of traffic to HS2.

I know there was an hourly to Lyon, but further-away destinations (of which there were many, as far afield as Milan and Barcelona) had less-frequent services.

 

[Ianno87]

On the topic of LGV, does anyone know the recent (2018, 2019) frequency of TGVs on the Paris-Lyon stretch? Just wondering if that would be equivalent in terms of traffic to HS2.

I know there was an hourly to Lyon, but further-away destinations (of which there were many, as far afield as Milan and Barcelona) had less-frequent services.

Don't ask me to show my workings; but (having once scribbled it on a piece of paper out of the European Rail Timetable) I think it Paris-Lyon works out at something like 10-12tph in most hours (including stuff off the Interconnection). It's a bit of a complicated timetable pattern that doesn't repeat every hour. It is however, pretty much operating at capacity; the limiting factor is one of the lower-speed sections engineered in during the original design of the route, which acts as a permanent headway restriction, which now cannot be changed.

That's why compromising the speed capability of HS2 before it's even been built is a bad idea.

 

[stuu]

There is an ongoing project to install ETCS on LGV Sud Est, with an output of 16 tph. At the moment the theoretical capacity is 13tph

 

[Bald Rick]

An aside, but I'm surprised it's as little as 410 miles from Paris to Marseille, basically the same distance as London to Glasgow. I would have guessed over 500.

It’s 409 miles in a straight line from Gare de Lyon to Marseille St Charles. The train journey is much nearer 500miles.

On the topic of LGV, does anyone know the recent (2018, 2019) frequency of TGVs on the Paris-Lyon stretch? Just wondering if that would be equivalent in terms of traffic to HS2.

To add to @Ianno87 ... not all the trains use the line as far as Lyon. There’s services to Geneva, Basel/Zurich, Besançon, Annecy and a few other places that dive off the LGV before Lyon. And plenty more that pass around eg to Grenoble, Chambery, Milan, and of course to Marseille, Nice, Montpellier and the deep South West.

Very few stations get a better than hourly service to Paris. Take Dijon for example - the capital of Burgundy, home to one of the finest wine producing regions of the world, popular with tourists, plenty of business travel, about the same size as Norwich...and a TGV every other hour for most of the day.