How could the UK reduce the cost of large infrastructure projects?

[Noddy]

Nimbyism also isn’t an issue unique to Britain and other countries haven’t had the same cost blowouts.

No but governments in this country reacted to the growth in nimbyism since the 1980s with indecision and uncertainty about what is the governments long term policy is, and how the goverment plans to balance national and local issues. This means project developers have to be extremely conservative in what they can achieve which has driven up costs. This has not happened in other European countries. If the French government authorise the building of a railway it’s not going to get cancelled halfway through. Both HS1 and HS2 were often under threat of being cancelled at different times for example, and obviously Phase 2 was, purely as a short term vote grab by a PM who was only in post for less than two years but has caused long term damage.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It’s very clear from public statements that both Labour and the Conservative politicians accept their is an issue with costs. The planners should accept they have a role to play in that too.

Maybe the planners do but they have to plan within the outline requirement of the government(s).

Aside from the Victoria line rail projects built post-WW2 haven’t generally had issues with capacity.

I am trying to think of some rail projects built post WW2 anywhere near a comparable (large) scale. There are not many of any size.

And yet in the 1980s we had perfectly reasonable costs that was comparable to our peers.

The irony is that in the 1980s the French got on with using those powers - I was riding on a TGV to the South of France forty years ago this summer. It did not stop at many places btw, I think only Paris, Lyon and then somewhere sort of Avignon.

When they originally built the west coast mainline they considered 3 completely different routes. And planning was harder then as you had to do it on horseback.

They had a less ambitious plan when the WCML was being designed, although early railways were very ambitious compared to what had gone before in much the same way as HS2 is nowadays. Bear in mid that 100mph was very fast back then. The result is a line that has too sharper bends, ear popping tunnels and awkward junctions. What evolved afterwards were towns growing larger where the railways went which then get in the way of enhancements. If they had better capabilities they might well have chosen a better route over 150 years ago and I am not sure how much of the WCML was designed with a long distance line in mind - back then it was how do we get all this coal to market.

The French seem to manage it a lot better.

The French got on with High Speed rail lines a lot earlier than the UK so have had plenty of practice and plenty of precedent to say "there that is what we can do in your part of France".

And how much of the compensation money was spent arguing with the public over valuations?

If you do not argue over the value of compensation then you are giving in to a free for all and costs will definitely spiral upwards.

There are only a dozen countries with high speed rail.

That the HS2 planners don’t appear to have even visited all of them on holiday (let alone organised any meetings) and read the relevant Wikipedia articles and looked at a map of the various countries is a pretty big criticism.

I mean it’s difficult to believe that with a couple of person years effort that someone couldn’t have visited all the countries with high speed rail and visited a sensible sample of the stops and had meetings with a bunch of people and written a report about it.

Common sense says some planners might have visited or at least researched other countries' large projects. But I will let others come along with more knowledge/experience than me to answer. I fear both UK governments would have wanted to do it their own way so referring to how others have done it might have been frowned upon !. If Reform get in they are even more unlikely to look abroad - they do not believe HS2 was necessary. So that gives an idea of where we are in the UK.

Nimbyism also isn’t an issue unique to Britain and other countries haven’t had the same cost blowouts.

One of the things I am becoming aware of is that in other countries the hoops to go through for planning and appeals are simpler. We are tying ourselves in a thousand knots in this country. Furthermore any comparison with China is null and void - there one does as one is told.

 

[The exile]

The only requirement change is disabled access which is supposed to be a reasonable adjustment and ticket barriers I guess. That doesn't justify the difference between the £1.1m in today's money spent on Winnersh Triangle railway station and the £38.8m spent on e.g. Thanet Parkway. Nor does the need for a bridge/tunnel across the line which presumably Winnersh triangle avoided.

Think there have been quite a lot of requirement changes in terms of the actual construction process - mostly driven by the desire to reduce the chances of killing or seriously injuring people involved in that construction. However, your point is a valid one and it would be interesting to see an independent comparison of two similar projects in the latter part of the last century and today - but that would of course itself cost money.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Maybe the planners do but they have to plan within the outline require ment of the goverment(s).

It defies belief that the politicians wouldn't go for Jubilee line extension sized stations for Crossrail 2 if given the opportunity.

EDIT: E.g for the Bakerloo line extension do any of the new stations other than the rebuilt elephant and castle and Lewisham need more than a single exit plus a second emergency escape staircase? And would one of the smaller stops on the jubilee line extension like Southwark not be sufficient for the other two?

It did not stop at many places btw, I think only Paris, Lyon and then somewhere sort of Avignon.

There are other stops along way, it's just your train didn't call at them - which is fine.

Common sense says some planners might have visited or at least researched other countries' large projects.

If they had visited all of them there would be more stops for starters, like all of the other countries.

And we'd be hearing stories about them. The only country we hear stories about are the French - and even there they clearly didn't appreciate the much lower population density in France.

Think there have been quite a lot of requirement changes in terms of the actual construction process - mostly driven by the desire to reduce the chances of killing or seriously injuring people involved in that construction. However, your point is a valid one and it would be interesting to see an independent comparison of two similar projects in the latter part of the last century and today - but that would of course itself cost money.

This is a fair point, but also one other developed countries have to deal with.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

If you do not argue over the value of compensation then you are giving in to a free for all and costs will definitely spiral upwards.

The French overcompensated people and didn't see costs get out of control.

 

[The exile]

If they had visited all of them there would be more stops for starters, like all of the other countries.

I think the whole of the German high speed network has precisely one brand new station on a high speed line (Montabaur) and that was forced on an unwilling DB.

And we'd be hearing stories about them. The only country we hear stories about are the French - and even there they clearly didn't appreciate the much lower population density in France.

Who's "they"? And what's the point you're trying to make?

This is a fair point, but also one other developed countries have to deal with.

Not necessarily to the same extent.

Not immediately related to H&S costs, but I've just looked up the projected cost for the reactivation of the "Siemensbahn" in Berlin - a 4.5 Km stretch of the S-Bahn with 3 stations that has been disused since 1980. Estimated cost in 2021 - approx. 320 million Euros. By the end of 2023 it was being reported that the cost to the federal state of Berlin alone could reach 870 million. The planning phase is due to be completed sometime this year - will be interesting to see what the projected cost is then (and what it actually turns out to be on completion). Again - no land acquisition required as the railway is legally only mothballed.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m really sorry to do this, but it looks like you are commenting without having actually been involved in the development of a major railway project (or any major linear infrastructure project). It might be worth considering applying for a job with one, so that you can see what really happens, and then understand that most of what you say simply isn’t true. And then perhaps consider taking into account what those of us who have worked on such projects (me and several others on this thread) are saying.

Aside from the Victoria line rail projects built post-WW2 haven’t generally had issues with capacity.

That’s because they were built with future growth in mind. Even then, the Elizabeth line is already getting close to it’s practical capacity limit without further investment (which is why more trains are coming)

And yet in the 1980s we had perfectly reasonable costs that was comparable to our peers.

We also had rather different accounting. Besides, aside from the Selby diversion, we built precious few new railways.

The French seem to manage it a lot better.

Sometimes they don’t.The Bordeaux - Toulouse LGV achieved its primary consent (equivalent to an act of Parliament) in 2008. It was sent back for another go, and granted again in 2015, 2 years before HS2 was. Main construction has only just started. There are still legal challenges underway now.

That the HS2 planners don’t appear to have even visited all of them on holiday (let alone organised any meetings)

HS2 visited other high speed railways all over the world in the development process, both before and after HS2 was called HS2.

The Stansted Airport branch was only £44m

In current prices, that would be around £200m. Don’t forget the station was built and paid for by the airport.

If the French government authorise the building of a railway it’s not going to get cancelled halfway through.

Quite a few have been. And a couple of them have subsequently been reinstated.

It defies belief that the politicians wouldn't go for Jubilee line extension sized stations for Crossrail 2 if given the opportunity.

125m long platforms for 250m long trains might be an issue; that’s before we come to the capacity of each train (about 700 for the Jubilee line, 2000 for a CR2 train).

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think the whole of the German high speed network has precisely one brand new station on a high speed line (Montabaur)

On the lines I have been on:

On Cologne Frankfurt there are the following stops (served by some ICE trains):

• Seigburg/Bonn @ 24.3km
• Montabuar @ 89.1km
• Limburg Sud @ 110.5km
• Frankfurt Flughafen @ 169.3km

On Nuremberg-Ingolstadt there are the following stops (only served by regional trains, but ones that use the high speed line):

• Allersberg @ 25.4km
• Kinding @ 58.9km
• Ingolstadt Nord @ 87km

On Nuremberg (Bamburg) - Erfurt - none but some ICE trains do go off the line to serve Coburg which is connected via loops. The line is 108km long and goes through pretty empty countryside.

On Wendlingen-Ulm (only served by regional trains, but ones that use the high speed line) - the line is 89km long and goes through pretty empty countryside.

• Merklingen @63.9km

that was forced on an unwilling DB.

I am sure JR Central would say the same about the Kodama, the thing is when it has come to newer high speed lines Japan has built even more stops serving smaller places.

Who's "they"? And what's the point you're trying to make?

Whenever you discuss HS2 you hear people say "oh they spoke to the French/SNCF and they said don't built Haute Picardie" well fair enough, maybe HS2 shouldn't call at Lockerbie - which is the equivalent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

In current prices, that would be around £200m. Don’t forget the station was built and paid for by the airport.

Is £200m really terrible for a tunnel under an airport?

125m long platforms for 250m long trains might be an issue

So build longer platforms but otherwise keep things the same.

Even then, the Elizabeth line is already getting close to it’s practical capacity limit without further investment

The stations aren't. Maybe you need more trains, so what?

That’s because they were built with future growth in mind

So they achieved that and were still much cheaper than HS2 and other modern projects.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

HS2 visited other high speed railways all over the world in the development process

So a bunch of people who are completely risk adverse went and spoke to all the other countries and then made a bunch of decisions that are completely different from every other country? Really?

And the person who built HS1 complained they never even spoke to him.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

I’m really sorry to do this, but it looks like you are commenting without having actually been involved in the development of a major railway project (or any major linear infrastructure project). It might be worth considering applying for a job with one, so that you can see what really happens, and then understand that most of what you say simply isn’t true. And then perhaps consider taking into account what those of us who have worked on such projects (me and several others on this thread) are saying.

If there weren't significant issues with costs then they wouldn't be so out of alignment with our neighbours who operate under similar constraints.

And if you really think the situation is different perhaps you and the other planners need to write to your MPs suggesting useful reforms to bring us into line with the other countries.

 

[Bald Rick]

So build longer platforms but otherwise keep things the same.

Consider how many people might alight or board a train that has three times as many people on it than a 96 stock train on the Jubilee. Do you think that might need the same, or more platform width, vertical circulation, passageways, gateline space, tickethall space, emergency escape arrangements, back of house space for plant and machinery (eg ventilation, fire suppression equipment), staff accommodation, and so on?

So a bunch of people who are completely risk adverse

That’s a rather sweeping statement. How many of them do you know?

And the person who built HS1 complained they never even spoke to him.

HS1 was built by more than one person. Many of them who did also worked for HS2, and some still do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

And if you really think the situation is different perhaps you and the other planners need to write to your MPs suggesting useful reforms to bring us into line with the other countries.

I don’t need to, my MP has no influence in such matters (although I do speak to her occasionally). However I have other routes to those in Government, let’s leave it at that.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Consider how many people might alight or board a train that has three times as many people on it than a 96 stock train on the Jubilee. Do you think that might need the same, or more platform width, vertical circulation, passageways, gateline space, tickethall space, emergency escape arrangements, back of house space for plant and machinery (eg ventilation, fire suppression equipment), staff accommodation, and so on?

Why does a station that handles 20 million passengers a year on the Jubilee Line Extension need less space than one that will get 20 million passengers a year on Crossrail 2?

Bearing in mind that even the Jubilee Line Extension platforms are pretty large compared to the previous tube platforms that have by and large proved perfectly adequate.

 

[HSTEd]

This doesn't simplify things, it just changes the problem.

Anyone who visited the construction sites for the Elizabeth Line stations could see how disposing of large amounts of spoil constrained construction.

Yes, but this is a problem which can be solved with conceptually less interaction with people and organisations.
In an increasingly tunneling dominated landscape, especially with very large tunnel boring machines, the sources of spoil in a project reduce in number over time. They concentrate in a relative handful of giant sources.

At the other extreme, one of the big challenges of building the Reservoir in the Fens is the amount of aggregate that's going to be needed to be brought in for construction.

This is a challenge, but a conceptually "simple" one. Its aggregate delivered from a small number of source locations (potentially one), and delivered to a small number of destinations, potentially one.
It is unlikely to involve anything like the mass of different problems that can be seen in "spoil balanced" projects, where any change to the design can cause imbalances that then force more changes to the design.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

Quite a few have been. And a couple of them have subsequently been reinstated.

Even in Japan, see the saga of the Narita Shinkansen. And of Narita airport more generally.

If HS2 etc wants to complain about NIMBY disruption, they should take a look at what protestors in Japan are capable of!

 

[Peter Sarf]

I am sure JR Central would say the same about the Kodama, the thing is when it has come to newer high speed lines Japan has built even more stops serving smaller places.

JR are possibly building newer high speed lines with more stops because there have done enough high speed that links the furthest places OR Possibly because the places to be served have little or no alternative ?.

Whenever you discuss HS2 you hear people say "oh they spoke to the French/SNCF and they said don't built Haute Picardie" well fair enough, maybe HS2 shouldn't call at Lockerbie - which is the equivalent.

Lockerbie is NOT on a high speed line and it is NOT getting a station built on a high speed line. Lockerbie is on a line that will be connected to HS2 and some HS2 trains might well call there since the station is already there. Your mixing up stations built on high speed lines with stations that already exist on lines connected to high speed lines.

So build longer platforms but otherwise keep things the same.

Longer platforms means longer trains means more people flooding towards the exit/escalators in one go. That requires bigger stations than just longer but still thin platforms. I have used the Elizabeth line enough to be thankful that the stations can handle the passengers already using it.

The Elizabeth line says yto be how badly we needed a new East-West line crossing London. In 1988 when I started using the Central line in London people had already started discussing a relief line. Looking back (almost forty years) it is so obvious how badly it was needed. One of the costs for the Elizabeth line was threading a route that avoided the deep foundations of many of London buildings so I am unsure if we could build another one !.

The stations aren't. Maybe you need more trains, so what?

More trains means more use of the platform and entrances.

So a bunch of people who are completely risk adverse went and spoke to all the other countries and then made a bunch of decisions that are completely different from every other country? Really?

So you have gone from saying no planners went and visited other countries to see how they did it to now saying they had closed minds, but did go.

Actually I do wonder if any politicians went and had a look with or without open minds and with or without spending some time on detail.

And the person who built HS1 complained they never even spoke to him.

I expect there was more than one person involved in HS1 and I wonder how many of them were involved in HS2.

EDIT I see @Bald Rick has answered that better than me.

If there weren't significant issues with costs then they wouldn't be so out of alignment with our neighbours who operate under similar constraints.

Well we know that - it is the how and why that interests us (and this thread).

And if you really think the situation is different perhaps you and the other planners need to write to your MPs suggesting useful reforms to bring us into line with the other countries.

Well the more people that do point this out to THEIR MPs the better. It would be better coming from Joe public (their voters) rather than from people the politicians could argue have a vested interest (planners) - and might get punished for bringing bad news.

Why does a station that handles 20 million passengers a year on the Jubilee Line Extension need less space than one that will get 20 million passengers a year on Crossrail 2?

Maybe it does need more space, maybe the lesson has been learnt.

Bearing in mind that even the Jubilee Line Extension platforms are pretty large compared to the previous tube platforms that have by and large proved perfectly adequate.

My bold - Really. Every weekday morning peak for decades (since before 1988 iirc) the Victoria line platforms at Victoria get closed due to dangerous overcrowding. I have seen many unpleasantly full platforms (particularly for me when changing at Oxford Circus. Bank Central Line recently got rebuilt. There were platforms on the Northern line that were horrendously narrow and had two faces. Elizabeth line is getting pretty busy, its levels of use have risen quicker than hoped for.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

This is a challenge, but a conceptually "simple" one. Its aggregate delivered from a small number of source locations (potentially one), and delivered to a small number of destinations, potentially one.
It is unlikely to involve anything like the mass of different problems that can be seen in "spoil balanced" projects, where any change to the design can cause imbalances that then force more changes to the design.

You have got me thinking. Perhaps we need a machine that can progress along the surface building a surface line getting all its materials from aling the line of route and passing any spoil back out along the route behind it. I know its not perfect as in a tunnel you get a consistent quantity of spoil, do not need to bring spoil back in (for embankments) and it is mainly tunnels segments (no bridges). I just wonder how much scope there is for some more linear process on the surface. I think I might be realising how easy a tunnel is compared to surface. But is there anything there to explore ?.

Even in Japan, see the saga of the Narita Shinkansen. And of Narita airport more generally.

If HS2 etc wants to complain about NIMBY disruption, they should take a look at what protestors in Japan are capable of!

This reminds me - I think the sad fact is that a lot of other countries got their high speed lines built decades ago. In the UK we have dithered until its a lot harder to get done.

As for Health and safety. One of the new high level lines in Thailand was built along an existing line. Activities carry on above while trains pass underneath - one train was unlucky and got a (several hundred tonne iirc) crane falling on it. I expect things are simpler in China too.

Found an interesting link to a video.

 

[FMerrymon]

Yes, back on track!
(Should I get my coat?)

It was in danger of getting derailed.

But I think trying to pick political fights that could be avoided with a bit more spent on tunnels and the like is a big problem.

Tunneled construction has probably got cheaper relative to surface construction in a big way in recent decades, and perhaps our infrastructure planning is simply not keeping up with the times?

There are quite a few people who feel they weren't treated well by HS2. I do speak to someone affected and can see their point. They also said that many people who were directly affected did not demand anything off their MPs and upset people have this nimby demanded tunnels narrative. One person HS2 upset was the man who owned the company that owned the land at Euston. He successfully settled out of court, but having been excited about involvement in Euston redevelopment now runs a campaign to cancel hs2 in its entirety. The campaign is pure misinformation mostly, but he's invited onto talk tv to spout nonsense, and that doesn't do the PR much good. Perhaps they could have worked alongside the then current owners. There are other Camden nimbys who funded some of the initial work from Byng. Personally, I think the chiltern locals got a little too much blame - there were changes alll along the line and some of the most expensive happened in London.

Re the 4 mins and 15%; I’ve not seen that officially (that’s not to say it wasn’t said somewhere official), and it doesn’t sound right I agree.

However a 4 minute change on a 40 minute journey (London to Birmingham) has a much higher drag on demand proportionally than 4 mins on a 4 hour journey (London to Scotland).

4 mins may not seem a lot, but could mean another set required for a particular journey pair and additional staff costs, which may have affected the modelling. William Barter has made the point about phase 2a's speeds meant that there were savings in other ways as a result, else the timetable wouldnt work.

Or they followed the standard modern model of wildly overspeccing it and no thinking outside the box.

The thing for the Elizabeth line is it has encouraged a lot of building. If you see some of the places just outside central London, they are expanding very quickly and therefore you need to prepare for later growth. The stations in the centre have passive provision for an additional 2 carriages, which is likely to be needed considering the rate growth and therefore will be cost effective in the future. HS2 itself has built in passive provision where its built bridges over it that are wider than necessary if there is a future possibility that the other route might expand too, or as in the extra wide spans for the Aylesbury link etc.

Nimbyism also isn’t an issue unique to Britain and other countries haven’t had the same cost blowouts.

As I pointed to earlier with the link from DW, Germany has many cost blowouts. https://www.dw.com/en/why-german-building-projects-run-over-time-and-budget/a-75206468 similar issues to what we are faced with. Changes to the route during the hybrid bill are a large factor in the pre goahead cost increase, but not the only one and not all Nimby driven (see above)

I'd design the next stages of HS2 for a maximum of 186 mph/300 kph.

The thing is the alignments are there for Manchester and for the Golborne link (which I beleive is still safe guarded). A lot of land has been purchased so changing phase2a would be daft, would cost more so might as well use the alignment. To Manchester, the most expensive bit, where a lot of the cost was, was for the tunnel and station - tunnel was to be 225kph, so no change required there either.

Speed isnt the big factor that is made out to be. I go back to my EWR bedford Cambridge comparison, a similar distance and not a huge difference in cost compared to phase 2a, despite being 100mph and not electrified. The alignment speed of hs2 isnt that much different from the LGV lines.

It's unfortunate much of the powers for acquiring land for Birmingham-Crewe-Manchester have lapsed.

Birmingham - Crewe has, but Crewe - Manchester is still going through parliament.

And HS2 phase 2 to Crewe/the East Midlands is much more expensive than projects in developed Asia/continental Europe and doesn't involve big cities.

See my EWR point. But a factor in their costs is the population density and therefore utilities, crossing routes that need moving even in the rural areas that are passed. In any case, this comes back to the question in the title of this thread, its not HS2 specific.

Its a good idea, but to be politically viable the project has to directly benefit the people affected by the construction.

The people affected should also understand when the project benefits them - many places affected do have benefits and these are either ignored or not understood. Ultimately, few people are happy with a construction site near them for 15 years whether it eventually benefits them or not.

The only requirement change is disabled access which is supposed to be a reasonable adjustment and ticket barriers I guess. That doesn't justify the difference between the £1.1m in today's money spent on Winnersh Triangle railway station and the £38.8m spent on e.g. Thanet Parkway. Nor does the need for a bridge/tunnel across the line which presumably Winnersh triangle avoided.

Winnersh Triangle is pretty much made of wood, its almost a DIY job, has no lift just steps up. Its exceptionally basic and not much to compare to Thanet Parkway.

And the person who built HS1 complained they never even spoke to him.

He was trying to sell another idea at the time and if you read his interview, he gets quite a few things wrong about HS2. That wouldn't have filled me with hope.

My bold - Really. Every weekday morning peak for decades (since before 1988 iirc) the Victoria line platforms at Victoria get closed due to dangerous overcrowding. I have seen many unpleasantly full platforms (particularly for me when changing at Oxford Circus. Bank Central Line recently got rebuilt. There were platforms on the Northern line that were horrendously narrow and had two faces. Elizabeth line is getting pretty busy, its levels of use have risen quicker than hoped for.

And with it encouraging development, and with that large economic return, that's only going to get busier. Whilst I'm a big fan of what Britain Remade stand for, their analysis can be messy and often miss the value of things they point out as costs. Their Elizabeth line comparison is against a cut and cover metro in Madrid that isn't going to carry nearly as many people as the Elizabeth line, and which required bespoke stations due to constricted space under London and needs to connect to other lines.

 

[Noddy]

The only requirement change is disabled access which is supposed to be a reasonable adjustment and ticket barriers I guess. That doesn't justify the difference between the £1.1m in today's money spent on Winnersh Triangle railway station and the £38.8m spent on e.g. Thanet Parkway. Nor does the need for a bridge/tunnel across the line which presumably Winnersh triangle avoided.

The Winnersh Triangle car park (if it was even included in the station price) wouldn’t have have anywhere near as much flood water mitigation strategies as Thanet Parkway, the price of which definitely included the car park and flood water mitigation. Winnersh probably also included zero environmental impact assessment for things like heritage and ecology (you can actually see the backfilled archaeological trenches at Thanet on the Google Earth satellite imagery dated 2018-2020). They almost certainly didn’t have to do extensive piling because they built a couple of wood platforms whereas Thanet involved building actual buildings on an embankment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

Even in Japan, see the saga of the Narita Shinkansen. And of Narita airport more generally.

If HS2 etc wants to complain about NIMBY disruption, they should take a look at what protestors in Japan are capable of!

Japan also has extremely high infrastructure costs (the original Shinkansen was double the budget, and one of Tokyo’s ring road tunnels was reported to cost a billion per km and that was back in the noughties), just like the UK. The extent to whether this is causation or correlation is absolutely open to debate but it’s definitely a factor in rising costs here since the 1980s because it’s led to a rise in poor government planning and strategy/short termism/vote grabbing decisions.

 

[Magdalia]

Yes, but this is a problem which can be solved with conceptually less interaction with people and organisations.
In an increasingly tunneling dominated landscape, especially with very large tunnel boring machines, the sources of spoil in a project reduce in number over time. They concentrate in a relative handful of giant sources.

The construction sites for the Elizabeth Line had huge interaction with people and organisations, as anyone who ever visited them would know. And the big source of spoil is excavating the stations not the tunnels.

This is a challenge, but a conceptually "simple" one. Its aggregate delivered from a small number of source locations (potentially one), and delivered to a small number of destinations, potentially one.

Things that are conceptually simple still bump up against reality. In the Fens this isn't simple, because of the lack of roads suitable for taking that amount of heavy traffic, and a railway that is effectively full. There is no simple answer to the route from the source to the destination.

 

[MatthewHutton]

The Winnersh Triangle car park (if it was even included in the station price) wouldn’t have have anywhere near as much flood water mitigation strategies as Thanet Parkway, the price of which definitely included the car park and flood water mitigation. Winnersh probably also included zero environmental impact assessment for things like heritage and ecology (you can actually see the backfilled archaeological trenches at Thanet on the Google Earth satellite imagery dated 2018-2020). They almost certainly didn’t have to do extensive piling because they built a couple of wood platforms whereas Thanet involved building actual buildings on an embankment.

Maybe there are some cost saving ideas for Thanet to have taken on? But a car park should be pretty cheap to construct as well - that isn't going to make a meaningful difference.

Japan also has extremely high infrastructure costs (the original Shinkansen was double the budget, and one of Tokyo’s ring road tunnels was reported to cost a billion per km and that was back in the noughties), just like the UK. The extent to whether this is causation or correlation is absolutely open to debate but it’s definitely a factor in rising costs here since the 1980s because it’s led to a rise in poor government planning and strategy/short termism/vote grabbing decisions.

I have a book on the Shinkansen from the mid 2000s which has all the costs of the various sections as well as High Speed One. High Speed One appears to have cost ¥12.5bn/km. The other older Shinkansen sections were typically considerably cheaper - costing between ¥3bn/km (Tokaido, Sanyo) and ¥9.7bn/km (Joetsu) - all adjusted for inflation. The only exceptions were: Omiya to Ueno (¥26bn/km) and Ueno to Tokyo (¥37bn/km). Also the Japanese lines do have to be earthquake proof etc. The transit cost people have come up with a complete list of newer stuff as well.

Lockerbie is NOT on a high speed line and it is NOT getting a station built on a high speed line.

Lockerbie is the equivalent of Haute Picardie in terms of population density. Even Oxenholme/Penrith where it is also similar have tourism. The population density south of Manchester is much higher.

My bold - Really. Every weekday morning peak for decades (since before 1988 iirc) the Victoria line platforms at Victoria get closed due to dangerous overcrowding. I have seen many unpleasantly full platforms (particularly for me when changing at Oxford Circus. Bank Central Line recently got rebuilt.

OK so here is the complete list of stations that are at least sometimes overcrowded - or have been upgraded to give them more space.

On the Victoria Line:

• Kings Cross St Pancras
• Oxford Circus
• Green Park
• Victoria

Off the Victoria Line:

• Bank
• Camden Town
• Covent Garden
• All the stations built with narrow island platforms

So yes the stations on the Victoria line in zone 1 were clearly built too small, and the ones built with narrow island platforms around 1900 have proven dangerous. However the size was increased for the Jubilee Line Extension which has proved completely adequate, before being increased again for the Elizabeth Line and perhaps would be even larger for Crossrail 2 which has significantly higher costs per km than Crossrail 1.

many places affected do have benefits and these are either ignored or not understood

Buckinghamshire does not gain any benefits - perhaps if the line to Old Oak Common is built they will get some.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

One person HS2 upset was the man who owned the company that owned the land at Euston

So he gets a station!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

So you have gone from saying no planners went and visited other countries to see how they did it to now saying they had closed minds, but did go.

Either they didn't go anywhere other than perhaps speaking to the French, or they did and had closed minds. Difficult to judge which as I wasn't involved in the project.

Fundamentally what is clear is that they didn't learn any lessons from other countries.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

Longer platforms means longer trains means more people flooding towards the exit/escalators in one go.

For a given number of people using a station they are more spread out along the train so there will be fewer reaching the exit at the same time, so if anything you could get away with smaller exits.

 

[Magdalia]

The Winnersh Triangle car park (if it was even included in the station price) wouldn’t have have anywhere near as much flood water mitigation strategies as Thanet Parkway, the price of which definitely included the car park and flood water mitigation. Winnersh probably also included zero environmental impact assessment for things like heritage and ecology (you can actually see the backfilled archaeological trenches at Thanet on the Google Earth satellite imagery dated 2018-2020). They almost certainly didn’t have to do extensive piling because they built a couple of wood platforms whereas Thanet involved building actual buildings on an embankment.

But a car park should be pretty cheap to construct as well - that isn't going to make a meaningful difference.

Nothing is cheap to construct, and car parks are not an exception. Drainage is always a significant issue because of the need to manage surface water runoff.

 

[Noddy]

Maybe there are some cost saving ideas for Thanet to have taken on? But a car park should be pretty cheap to construct as well - that isn't going to make a meaningful difference.

Only if it has no flood mitigation. At Thanet there are three balancing ponds (one on each side not adjacent to the railway) to deal with the water, and there will be a network of drains under the car park. This wouldn’t have happened in 1986.

 

[Magdalia]

For a given number of people using a station they are more spread out along the train so there will be fewer reaching the exit at the same time, so if anything you could get away with smaller exits.

You obviously haven't watched commuter behaviour very closely! Commuters choose where to travel in the train to be near the exit, especially those who don't want to be in a queue to get out of the car park.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You obviously haven't watched commuter behaviour very closely! Commuters choose where to travel in the train to be near the exit, especially those who don't want to be in a queue to get out of the car park.

Sure, but on a high traffic line with long trains it also depends on where the entrance to the platforms is where people get on - and that should be different for each station - especially in the middle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

Only if it has no flood mitigation. At Thanet there are three balancing ponds (one on each side not adjacent to the railway) to deal with the water, and there will be a network of drains under the car park. This wouldn’t have happened in 1986.

All fair, and all of which justifies somewhat higher costs, but these balancing pools etc can be built for standard residential/commercial costs and not for railway costs.

You still probably talking maybe £3-5k/parking space in todays money or something or a total of around £1-1.5m for the 300 spaces.

 

[Noddy]

Sure, but on a high traffic line with long trains it also depends on where the entrance to the platforms is where people get on - and that should be different for each station - especially in the middle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==


All fair, and all of which justifies somewhat higher costs, but these balancing pools etc can be built for standard residential/commercial costs and not for railway costs.

You still probably talking maybe £3-5k/parking space in todays money or something or a total of around £1-1.5m for the 300 spaces.

But as I say that’s not the only cost associated with car park. There’s also stuff like the archaeological works which I can guarantee were completed at standard prices, not railway prices whatever that means. In 1986 it would have all just got buldozed or, if the construction workers happened to spot something, the archaeological works would have been funded by the taxpayer, not the project.

All this stuff slowly adds up.

The link below is the councils webpage for the archaeology done as part of the works:

As part of the planning process, excavations will take place in advance of the Thanet Parkway construction. This will help to record the archaeology for future generations.

The initial phase of the works will involve the careful recording and removal of archaeology. This will start with the use of mechanical excavators to remove plough soil, and reveal archaeological horizons.

Our expected findings​

We expect to find Iron Age enclosure ditches, rubbish pits and trackways at the site, as surrounding areas have been found to have lots of archaeological settlements and field systems related to farming. We hope that these findings will tell us more about what prehistoric life was like.

We know from previous investigations that there was a large Iron Age site on Hengist Way which was bordered by a substantial hollow-way (a track). This originated in the Bronze Age and eventually went out of use in the Romano-British period. The feature and much of the settlement activity is known to extend across the Parkway site and to the south toward Cottington Road. Cremations and burials have also been found to the north and west, dating to the Iron Age and Romano-British. Whilst Anglo-Saxon or medieval remains are less likely to be found, there is however evidence of an Anglo-Saxon building nearby.

https://www.kent.gov.uk/leisure-and-community/history-and-heritage/thanet-parkway-archaeology

 

[FMerrymon]

Buckinghamshire does not gain any benefits - perhaps if the line to Old Oak Common is built they will get some.

We've been through this several times. Buckinghamshire benefits in multiple ways. As I said, either ignored or unknown.

 

[MatthewHutton]

But as I say that’s not the only cost associated with car park. There’s also stuff like the archaeological works which I can guarantee were completed at standard prices, not railway prices whatever that means. In 1986 it would have all just got buldozed or, if the construction workers happened to spot something, the archaeological works would have been funded by the taxpayer, not the project.

All this stuff slowly adds up.

The link below is the councils webpage for the archaeology done as part of the works:

https://www.kent.gov.uk/leisure-and-community/history-and-heritage/thanet-parkway-archaeology

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree.

But I do feel you are making a decent case for this is why it costs £8-12m in today’s money and not £1-2 - but not why it costs £40m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==

We've been through this several times. Buckinghamshire benefits in multiple ways. As I said, either ignored or unknown.

The benefits do need out of scope later work to actually happen in order for them to exist.

While some enabling works may be happening its not like HS2 is upgrading the existing line from Aylesbury to Princes Risborough and building the link from Ruislip to Old Oak Common including the station at Old Oak Common lane.

 

[FMerrymon]

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree.

But I do feel you are making a decent case for this is why it costs £8-12m in today’s money - but not why it costs £40m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2026 ==


The benefits do need out of scope later work to actually happen in order for them to exist. While some enabling works may be happening its not like HS2 is upgrading the existing line from Aylesbury to Princes Risborough and building the link from Ruislip to Old Oak Common including the station.

Buckinghamshire also has the wcml and gwml running through it.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Buckinghamshire also has the wcml and gwml running through it.

Technically. But those are miles and miles away from the places affected by HS2.

 

[Noddy]

Perhaps we have to agree to disagree.

But I haven’t even got onto the four public consultations, the electricity substation (+ costs of getting a new grid connection), the EV charging, the (safety) lighting, the landscaping and greenspace design!

 

[MatthewHutton]

the electricity substation (+ costs of getting a new grid connection), the EV charging

EV charging shouldn’t add much if any project cost. See e.g https://instavolt.co.uk/for-site-owners-partner-landlords/

 

[Noddy]

EV charging shouldn’t add much if any project cost. See e.g https://instavolt.co.uk/for-site-owners-partner-landlords/

In modern accounting terms it’s still part of the total cost of the project. Hence my query about whether they even included the cost of the car park at Winnersh in 1986.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does a station that handles 20 million passengers a year on the Jubilee Line Extension need less space than one that will get 20 million passengers a year on Crossrail 2?

You’ve studied the demand forecasts for Crossrail2 then? Or perhaps not, and I guess that also means you havent seen the detailed station level demand forecssting, passenegr modelling and so on that led to the stations being designed as they have been.

(Hint: some of the CR2 stations were predicted to have a Lot more that 20m people a year. Tottenham Court Road already has more than 3 times that number)

You still probably talking maybe £3-5k/parking space in todays money or something

Double that for surace car parking. Parking is one of the things where rail projects can benchmark very accurately to non-rail, which gives a good indication of the cost differences. Hint: there‘s barely any difference.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You’ve studied the demand forecasts for Crossrail2 then? Or perhaps not, and I guess that also means you havent seen the detailed station level demand forecssting, passenegr modelling and so on that led to the stations being designed as they have been.

(Hint: some of the CR2 stations were predicted to have a Lot more that 20m people a year. Tottenham Court Road already has more than 3 times that number)

OK so what's the total ridership predicted to be? 300m like the Victoria line got in 2019? And with a larger number of suburban stops?

So basically that would point to what we could call the bronze solution for the suburban stations where there is a single Victoria Line suburban entrance plus a lift for the disabled plus a staircase at the other end for emergencies. Even something that basic would almost certainly prove perfectly adequate.

Silver would be two Victoria line style entrances - one at each end - plus lifts for the disabled. Gold would be Jubilee line extension style stations, and platinum would be anything more elaborate than that.

I think we are well into the platinum for the suburban stops, it's ridiculous.

Presenting a "silver" and a "gold" solution from the above to the politicians would be giving them a reasonable choice that makes good use of taxpayers money.

 

[HSTEd]

The construction sites for the Elizabeth Line had huge interaction with people and organisations, as anyone who ever visited them would know. And the big source of spoil is excavating the stations not the tunnels.

Spoil sources being mostly from stations is certainly true for a conventional old-style underground line, where you use comparatively small diameter running tunnels and then mined or cut and cover station caverns for the platforms.
But with the arrival of large bore TBMs we can arrange for the running tunnel to be so large that the platforms fit inside them.
The Barcelona Metro has done this, and (if it ever actually starts construction!) the newest BART extension is supposed to. Indeed the Silicon Valley BART extension has taken it to an extreme by proposing a 17m tunnel boring machine for a metro line, because they want island platforms rather than double-decked side platforms.

A 19m class TBM, which is advertised by manufacturers, could provide two Crossrail scale platforms in the running tunnel, even allowing for a GC or larger gauge train.

After that, the only thing left is the access arrangements, which definitely have interaction with other people on the surface, but then again so would a surface or near surface station!

As an example Llefia station on the Barcelona metro has a ~26m diameter access shaft. If 50m deep that would be ~30,000m3 of spoil to be removed, which would be about equal to 100-400m of running tunnel, depending on the precise diameter you go to. It's unclear what the design capacity for that station is (at least in English), but its got several times the lift capacity of Covent Garden, so even if it isn't simply suitable for crossrail it could do pretty much any other job.

Ofcourse you could always add another access adit or shaft.

If you are willing to accept a delay in starting serious station excavation until after the TBM has passed, a small diameter adit could be used to drop the spoil into the tunnel to be hauled away like the TBM spoil.

Either way, still expensive, but these large bore tunnels are potentially very interesting.

EDIT:

To be fair, a 19m class TBM is going to produce something like 14,000 tonnes of spoil per day, so you'd probably end up with a merry go round style installation at the launch point. With a single national spoil disposal facility you'd want a full blown merry go round at the destination too.