Have railways became too expensive to build/improve?

[Goldfish62]

Dedicated high speed lines like that have larger spacing between the tracks, so there’s a greater margin of safety.

Reading https://www.bahn.de/service/ueber-uns/inside-bahn/news/grossbaustellen#4 there’s a few long term works where replacement buses are offered, so it’s hardly that we’re unique in using them.

Not saying that we're unique at all. I had to use a rail replacement service in the Frankfurt area a few years ago and it was a complete shambles.

 

[Andyh82]

Why was it decided that all new stations must have an elaborate footbridge with massive sets of ramps and/or lifts?

Why can’t passengers cross the track using a modern version of a barrow crossing, with red/green lights, maybe even an automatic gate that opens/closes as required

Yes I’m not suggesting that solution of a new station was built on a 4 track mainline, but surely it’d be sufficient on a 2 track railway with only a few trains per hour where the line speed is low, and most trains will be stopping at the station anyway

I’ve seen the amount of time and effort and no doubt expense the new footbridge at Castleford has taken to build and it’s not entirely clear how much use it will get long term

 

[zwk500]

Why was it decided that all new stations must have an elaborate footbridge with massive sets of ramps and/or lifts?

Why can’t passengers cross the track using a modern version of a barrow crossing, with red/green lights, maybe even an automatic gate that opens/closes as required

Disability access legislation, and level crossing policy.

Yes I’m not suggesting that solution of a new station was built on a 4 track mainline, but surely it’d be sufficient on a 2 track railway with only a few trains per hour where the line speed is low, and most trains will be stopping at the station anyway

Garforth is, tbf, on the Leeds-York and Leeds-Hull lines with non-stop trains and at a section that I think is 90mph.

I’ve seen the amount of time and effort and no doubt expense the new footbridge at Castleford has taken to build and it’s not entirely clear how much use it will get long term

Castleford maybe it's more OTT.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Disability access legislation, and level crossing policy.

What's wrong with an underpass? Surely the station can be elevated slightly above ground level, then have a wide underpass below. I think a few NL stations do that for cycles eg bunnik

 

[zwk500]

What's wrong with an underpass? Surely the station can be elevated slightly above ground level, then have a wide underpass below. I think a few NL stations do that for cycles eg bunnik

There's nothing 'wrong' with an underpass, if you've got the room for it. However Underpasses tend to require more work to install than footbridges, because you have to remove the line and dig out the trackbed to install the bridge.

Where it's more practical to put an underpass in (with lifts or ramps) they are done - ISTR a footpath level crossing near Hassocks was converted into an underpass (the line is on a substantial embankment at that point) a couple of years ago.

In that specific example, I note that the underpass is part of the municipal cycling infrastructure and is not confined to the station (so would likely have had a contribution or wholly funded by somebody other than the railway) and there are lift towers to both platforms at the bridge itself.

 

[Fazaar1889]

There's nothing 'wrong' with an underpass, if you've got the room for it. However Underpasses tend to require more work to install than footbridges, because you have to remove the line and dig out the trackbed to install the bridge.

Where it's more practical to put an underpass in (with lifts or ramps) they are done - ISTR a footpath level crossing near Hassocks was converted into an underpass (the line is on a substantial embankment at that point) a couple of years ago.

In that specific example, I note that the underpass is part of the municipal cycling infrastructure and is not confined to the station (so would likely have had a contribution or wholly funded by somebody other than the railway) and there are lift towers to both platforms at the bridge itself.

Interesting, thank you! Could they potentially be more expensive than footbridges considering you need to remove the line and generally require more work?

 

[The Planner]

What's wrong with an underpass? Surely the station can be elevated slightly above ground level, then have a wide underpass below. I think a few NL stations do that for cycles eg bunnik

Remember that if you are raising the track bed by any significant amount, it needs a run in and run out, so its not just confined to that immediate area.

 

[zwk500]

Interesting, thank you! Could they potentially be more expensive than footbridges considering you need to remove the line and generally require more work?

Yes. If you require a longer possession, or disconnection of signalling, or to demolish a platform structure, or a more complicated lift it will all add to the costs. Also Underpasses also tend to require more land for the access (especially with the drainage considerations). They definitely take more land if you are designing them to be light and safe as in the dutch example.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Remember that if you are raising the track bed by any significant amount, it needs a run in and run out, so its not just confined to that immediate area.

Yes. If you require a longer possession, or disconnection of signalling, or to demolish a platform structure, or a more complicated lift it will all add to the costs. Also Underpasses also tend to require more land for the access (especially with the drainage considerations). They definitely take more land if you are designing them to be light and safe as in the dutch example.

:thumbsup: thanks guys

 

[Horizon22]

Interesting, thank you! Could they potentially be more expensive than footbridges considering you need to remove the line and generally require more work?

Almost certainly; it’s cheaper to build in the air that it is underground. Partly why HS2 is expensive as it is.

 

[zwk500]

:thumbsup: thanks guys

For a bit of context, here's a timelapse of the installation of Slough accessible footbridge:

And here's an NR press release with a timelapse of the installation of the Hassocks subway: https://www.networkrailmediacentre....ocks-underpass-officially-opens-to-the-public

Both videos are less than 5 minutes, but they give you a very good idea of the different scales of each operation - and it should be pointed out that the subway installation there is probably the easiest it could be, with local ground level and trackbed level being suitable for a cut-and-cover tunnel to be dropped into place.

 

[Fazaar1889]

What should the project cost then? Give us an outline breakdown.

So is £6 mil not that much for a footbridge because it sure sounds like a lot

 

[zwk500]

So is £6 mil not that much for a footbridge because it sure sounds like a lot

£6m is on the higher side of what I'd expect a footbridge to cost but once you start including every person's hours into a project it quickly starts adding up.

A key takeaway from this NCE article (behind a permeable paywall: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/in...-revolutionises-railway-crossings-25-06-2021/)

The bald statistics for railway footbridges make sobering reading. It can take a year on site to build one. Only a third of the £3M to £4M it costs to build each bridge goes on the materials and the creation of the structure itself

...

“The main costs are the planning and execution of railway possessions, the crane hire, bridge transport, getting planning permission and so on. When time on site is extended in the way it is for footbridge design, the cost of establishing and maintaining a compound close to the railway is drawn out and expensive.”

A lot of the early discussion concerned the cost and disruption of possessions, Fountain says. “Our objective is to do it in just a single 52 hour possession – possibly even trimmed to 48 hours, which is less than a weekend – and we think this is possible.”

 

[Fazaar1889]

£6m is on the higher side of what I'd expect a footbridge to cost but once you start including every person's hours into a project it quickly starts adding up.

A key takeaway from this NCE article (behind a permeable paywall: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/in...-revolutionises-railway-crossings-25-06-2021/)

Fair enough thanks

 

[HSTEd]

The recent and simplest station rebuilding project - Barrow Haven - in Lincolnshire cost £1.3 million. That is one platform being replaced in 3 months. Normally, I'd be the first to say that's crazy on both the time and cost but I respect now that to shut the whole line and do it in a fortnight would be very detrimental in a poorly served region. I'm tempted to say they could have tried to get the cost down to £1 million but an extra £300,000 isnt that painful.

It would probably have cost a fraction of that if they had just closed the line.....

 

[43066]

It would probably have cost a fraction of that if they had just closed the line.....

If the idea is just to spend as little as possible, why stop there? We might as well close the whole railway down.

 

[HSTEd]

If the idea is just to spend as little as possible, why stop there? We might as well close the whole railway down.

I'm not sure how you get from "close part of an incredibly lightly used line to get the work done faster and more cheaply" to "just close the railway"?

Temporarily truncating the Barton line service to New Holland is hardly in the same league as "shut the railway". The entires and exits at Barton upon Humber are something like 800 a week.

 

[43066]

I'm not sure how you get from "close part of an incredibly lightly used line to get the work done faster and more cheaply" to "just close the railway"?

Temporarily truncating the Barton line service to New Holland is hardly in the same league as "shut the railway". The entires and exits at Barton upon Humber are something like 800 a week.

I had assumed you meant closing the line permanently.

You did say we should only bother with metro systems and not the rest of the railway (or similar) the other day, so not a completely unreasonable interpretation .

 

[zwk500]

If the idea is just to spend as little as possible, why stop there? We might as well close the whole railway down.

This is the kind of response that shuts down sensible discussion about whether the network we have is properly appropriate for the role we, nationally, want it to play (yes, I'm aware there's differences of opinions on what that role is).

Sensible, judicious pruning of lightly used branch lines are reasonable to discuss. I would dearly love somebody to actually work out how much keeping Newhaven Marine open cost the railway after the ferry terminal moved to the top of the wharf.

 

[HSTEd]

I had assumed you meant closing the line permanently.

You did say we should only bother with metro systems and not the rest of the railway (or similar) the other day, so not a completely unreasonable interpretation .

Perhaps I should have added "temporarily" to the post.

Although compared to some parts of the railway system Barton upon Humber seems to be relatively highly trafficked!

If we weren't stuck in the eternal ERTMS waiting room I'd wonder if it'd be suitable for an RETB installation to allow reduction in operating costs amongst other things.....

 

[43066]

This is the kind of response that shuts down sensible discussion about whether the network we have is properly appropriate for the role we, nationally, want it to play (yes, I'm aware there's differences of opinions on what that role is).

@HSTEd has clarified he didn’t mean permanent closure.

However some posters do seem preoccupied with making closures (and once it’s gone, it’s gone) rather than looking at ways to increase ridership.

Sensible, judicious pruning of lightly used branch lines are reasonable to discuss. I would dearly love somebody to actually work out how much keeping Newhaven Marine open cost the railway after the ferry terminal moved to the top of the wharf.

A station serving an abandoned ferry terminal is clearly pointless, but I understood the line is still open for freight traffic. That’s a little different to entire lines being completely closed.

 

[zwk500]

@HSTEd has clarified he didn’t mean permanent closure.

However some posters do seem preoccupied with making closures (and once it’s gone, it’s gone) rather than looking at ways to increase ridership.

Yes, once it's gone, it's gone. But what if we by closing a branch we were able to offer a cheaper, or more reliable, or even more frequent service to a bigger town with a station better disposed to rail use? And thereby increasing ridership at the same times as decreasing cost, maximising profits.
Rationalisation and focus on bulk flows is not bad management of the railway. We need to be able to talk about these options without people screeching 'SERPELL' at those who suggest taking data-led looks. I would never advocate dropping a line 'just because', nor would I suggest closing lines because they're operationally annoying but otherwise well used or providing an important social good.

A station serving an abandoned ferry terminal is clearly pointless, but I understood the line is still open for freight traffic. That’s a little different to entire lines being completely closed.

The line is indeed still open for freight traffic, and when it was proposed for formal closure so that the freight terminal could be developed (which was far more valuable to the railway than any passenger service after that date could hope to be) it still had complaints about it being the thin end of the wedge...

 

[eldomtom2]

There was an attempt by some academics to look at this, primarily focused on America. They blamed political meddling, lack of in-house capacity requiring the use of consultants, not giving contractors enough freedom, lack of coordination with other agencies resulting in gold-plating to get buy-in, overstaffing, unions, lack of standardization, and preferring more expensive but less disruptive methods like tunnnel boring rather than cheaper but more disruptive methods like cut-and-cover. Now considering that at least one of the contributors is definitely on the "crank" end of things it should be treated with a very very large grain of salt and absolutely not cited as gospel, but it's perhaps food for thought.

 

[43066]

Yes, once it's gone, it's gone. But what if we by closing a branch we were able to offer a cheaper, or more reliable, or even more frequent service to a bigger town with a station better disposed to rail use? And thereby increasing ridership at the same times as decreasing cost, maximising profits.

I have no faith that decisions would be taken on that basis. This government in particular has no interest whatsoever in improving services, merely in making short term savings to reward their voter base. The only reason they haven’t closed lines is presumably because they’ve worked out that the savings wouldn’t justify the likely political backlash.

We really do need to stop viewing the railway through the prism of being profit making, and stop viewing subsidy as a dirt word. We have previously agreed that rail when viewed as a whole makes a net positive economic contribution, and we already spend less than other European countries, so why the obsession with rationalisation?

Rationalisation and focus on bulk flows is not bad management of the railway. We need to be able to talk about these options without people screeching 'SERPELL' at those who suggest taking data-led looks. I would never advocate dropping a line 'just because', nor would I suggest closing lines because they're operationally annoying but otherwise well used or providing an important social good.

Why do we really need to look at rationalisation? The savings are pretty minuscule (as was the conclusion from the railway closures thread) and we then lose that infrastructure forever. Data-led tends to involve a snapshot being taken to justify decisions with long term impacts - as we have seen with kneejerk timetable reductions in response to Covid deleting passenger numbers, and even reports that ministers are disappointed at how successful Crossrail has been!

The line is indeed still open for freight traffic, and when it was proposed for formal closure so that the freight terminal could be developed (which was far more valuable to the railway than any passenger service after that date could hope to be) it still had complaints about it being the thin end of the wedge...

We have had people proposing to close the Marston Vale, proposing to basically only invest in HS2 and metro services and abandon the rest etc. People will (understandably) worry that the railway might go the way of the bus industry.

 

[zwk500]

There was an attempt by some academics to look at this, primarily focused on America. They blamed political meddling, lack of in-house capacity requiring the use of consultants, not giving contractors enough freedom, lack of coordination with other agencies resulting in gold-plating to get buy-in, overstaffing, unions, lack of standardization, and preferring more expensive but less disruptive methods like tunnnel boring rather than cheaper but more disruptive methods like cut-and-cover. Now considering that at least one of the contributors is definitely on the "crank" end of things it should be treated with a very very large grain of salt and absolutely not cited as gospel, but it's perhaps food for thought.

While political meddling, lack of coordination and lack of standardisation have definitely inflated costs, I question how much in-house capacity and consultants really cost. It's a very common drum to bash, because of course the economic viability of every project is obvious to anybody who supports it, but I have been an in-house consultant for NR and I'd say the overall quality of the work my department produced was not as good as the top private consultants, although it was a darn sight better than the majority of the work we received from external consultants.

 

[HSTEd]

We really do need to stop viewing the railway through the prism of being profit making, and stop viewing subsidy as a dirt word. We have previously agreed that rail when viewed as a whole makes a net positive economic contribution, and we already spend less than other European countries, so why the obsession with rationalisation?

Because the railway is clearly capable of huge rationalisation and modernisation.

The continued use of Absolute Block and similar extremely labour intensive signalling methods, for example.
Or working practices straight out of the 1930s.

Meanwhile the cost of doing anything continues to rise and timescales on any infrastructure work continue to slip.
The railway has become so schlerotic that it is unlikely to be rid of semaphores in my lifetime, and I barely remember privatisation!

The railway has no god given right to billions in public subsidies, and the reality is that the coming electric road vehicle revolution will destroy the environmentalist credentials it has spent 25 years hiding behind.

 

[zwk500]

I have no faith that decisions would be taken on that basis. This government in particular has no interest whatsoever in improving services, merely in making short term savings to reward their voter base. The only reason they haven’t closed lines is presumably because they’ve worked out that the savings wouldn’t justify the likely political backlash.

That is a temporary political situation though. Eventually the government will change. The closure process was deliberately made very complicated to make closure expensive.

We really do need to stop viewing the railway through the prism of being profit making, and stop viewing subsidy as a dirt word. We have previously agreed that rail when viewed as a whole makes a net positive economic contribution, and we already spend less than other European countries, so why the obsession with rationalisation?

Because our railways are not being run efficiently. We should not expect the railway to be a commercially self-sufficient enterprise, and I do not advocate for it to do so. However we are left with a network based around the transport needs of 150 years ago that has been teased and coaxed to just about serve the modern day. Quite frankly what the railway manages to achieve with the network as it is should be recognised as miraculous by the Pope. But we pay more than any European country than France and Germany (2008 figures), and we have a network where the multiple competing companies has led to a much denser network than comparable areas in Europe - situations like 3 stations for Pontefract are a good example.
An important part of my vision for rationalisation is that it is accompanied by investment in the overall network to optimise operation and capacity. You don't just close lines and leave the rest of the network as it was, you would invest in what you retain to multiply the benefits of the railway.

Why do we really need to look at rationalisation? The savings are pretty minuscule (as was the conclusion from the railway closures thread) and we then lose that infrastructure forever. Data-led tends to involve a snapshot being taken to justify decisions with long term impacts

Not proper data-led discussions - you scope the analysis to take into account long-term trends and establish what the margin of error is. I'm not talking about rationalising like single-tracking or whatever, that doesn't save money. I'm talking about very carefully targeted decisions where closure releases clear capacity benefits, or enables much more valuable services to be operated instead.

- as we have seen with kneejerk timetable reductions in response to Covid deleting passenger numbers, and even reports that ministers are disappointed at how successful Crossrail has been!

Politicians always take kneejerk reactions, hence why I would remove them as far as possible from decisions.

We have had people proposing to close the Marston Vale, proposing to basically only invest in HS2 and metro services and abandon the rest etc. People will (understandably) worry that the railway might go the way of the bus industry.

The Marston vale is heavily used, and forms an important part of the future regional commuter network. If somebody's proposing building a vast housing development on the Humberside line then brilliant, let's keep it and invest sensibly so that 4-car trains can be introduced when needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==

The continued use of Absolute Block and similar extremely labour intensive signalling methods, for example.

Absolute block is a good example of the railways being too expensive to save themselves. The cost of fitting continuous detection (axle counters nowadays for the most part) and remote operation from a ROC to lightly-worked rural lines such as the S&C and Cumbrian Coast means the ongoing operation remains incredibly inflexible and costly. The development of an on-board intergity detection system that is approved for use with ETCS is desperately needed - your favourite hobbyhorse of ECP braking may well be part of that answer.

 

[HSTEd]

Absolute block is a good example of the railways being too expensive to save themselves. The cost of fitting continuous detection (axle counters nowadays for the most part) and remote operation from a ROC to lightly-worked rural lines such as the S&C and Cumbrian Coast means the ongoing operation remains incredibly inflexible and costly. The development of an on-board intergity detection system that is approved for use with ETCS is desperately needed - your favourite hobbyhorse of ECP braking may well be part of that answer.

Unfortunately I don't imagine the regulator would look too kindly on attempting to use RETB (which has no train integrity checking beyond the train crew getting out and looking) on any new lines.

Because even with the traditional limit of ~20 token exchanges per hour per signaller, the Cumbrian Coast line could probably be operated by a single duty signaller.
Might even be able to cover the S&C too given how lightly trafficked it is now, at least at quiet times.

As it is, we are stuck in the eternal ETCS waiting room, waiting for a signalling system that is not going to arrive in our lifetime in any reasonable quantity. There is no political will to force the adoption of a train integrity checking system.

EDIT:

RETB with CCTV to allow the signaller to look at the tail-end lights of the train as it passes the token exchange point?

 

[zwk500]

Unfortunately I don't imagine the regulator would look too kindly on attempting to use RETB (which has no train integrity checking beyond the train crew getting out and looking) on any new lines.

Because even with the traditional limit of ~20 token exchanges per hour per signaller, the Cumbrian Coast line could probably be operated by a single duty signaller.
Might even be able to cover the S&C too given how lightly trafficked it is now, at least at quiet times.

RETB won't be used on double track lines, the signaller workload would be ridiculous and it doesn't really work with non-stop trains. Even if it was a full VDU setup in a ROC, you're realistically looking at 2 workstations for the Cumbrian coast (split near Barrow area) and probably 2 for the S&C (although this could be done by a Hellifield panel covering right up to the fringe with Petteril Bridge Jn, and then that panel covering the Tyne Valley).

As it is, we are stuck in the eternal ETCS waiting room, waiting for a signalling system that is not going to arrive in our lifetime in any reasonable quantity. There is no political will to force the adoption of a train integrity checking system.

There may be from European partners - a benefit of ETCS being a common standard is that places like Norway and Sweden with very remote and very heavy traffic to their iron ore mines may be able to get standards adopted the UK can then utilise.

RETB with CCTV to allow the signaller to look at the tail-end lights of the train as it passes the token exchange point?

A Tail-lamp camera only really works for 1, maybe 2 positions. Not both platforms of every station. And RETB doesn't really work with non-stop trains.

 

[HSTEd]

RETB won't be used on double track lines, the signaller workload would be ridiculous and it doesn't really work with non-stop trains. Even if it was a full VDU setup in a ROC, you're realistically looking at 2 workstations for the Cumbrian coast (split near Barrow area) and probably 2 for the S&C (although this could be done by a Hellifield panel covering right up to the fringe with Petteril Bridge Jn, and then that panel covering the Tyne Valley).

Given that RETB allows the issauance of multi-block tokens.... would the number of token exchanges really be that large?

The bulk of the Cumbrian Coast has an hourly DMU service and thats pretty much it. 2hr30-ish journey time (Barrow-Carlisle) implies only five or six trains in motion at any given time.
Could issue tokens covering the bulk of the line without seriously damaging the service!

How many non-stop trains do you see on the Cumbrian Coast Line or the S&C?

EDIT:
By the time the 0651 leaves Barrow, the 0558 has already left Drigg.

There may be from European partners - a benefit of ETCS being a common standard is that places like Norway and Sweden with very remote and very heavy traffic to their iron ore mines may be able to get standards adopted the UK can then utilise.

Even if there was, there would still be no will to force deployment on the UK railway.

Freight operators would make noise about it being unaffordable etc etc etc.