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

[JamesT]

The speed issue isn't anywhere near as simple as that. High speed lines in mainland Europe are pretty much standardised at 300 - 320 km/h. Even the increase from 320 km/h to 360 km/h (the initial operating speed for HS2) involves substantial changes to standard rolling stock designs to accommodate 20% higher power and 20% more kinetic energy to be absorbed in crashworthiness. Similarly it involves higher powered substations (or more of them), more robust OLE and so on. There is absolutely no justification for the increase in speed - it's a piece of hubris by politicians at public expense. The capacity issue which HS2 is supposed to solve could have been perfectly well satisfied at 250 km/h, roughly halving the energy consumption per seat kilometre for a start.

Isn’t that mostly due to their lines having been built decades ago when technology wasn’t as advanced? Alstom’s latest TGV has a 350kph top speed, Siemens Velaro Novo has been run up to 360kph. If we’re starting from effectively a blank slate now, why not go with what’s possible rather than constraining ourselves? The marketing claims of the manufacturers are that their new models are 20% more efficient than the old, so negating the increased power demand of the higher speed.
As noted by other commentators, if we get the speed up and hence the travel time down, we can make more of a dent in air travel which is a much worse system than an electric train.

 

[mmh]

Isn’t that mostly due to their lines having been built decades ago when technology wasn’t as advanced? Alstom’s latest TGV has a 350kph top speed, Siemens Velaro Novo has been run up to 360kph. If we’re starting from effectively a blank slate now, why not go with what’s possible rather than constraining ourselves? The marketing claims of the manufacturers are that their new models are 20% more efficient than the old, so negating the increased power demand of the higher speed.
As noted by other commentators, if we get the speed up and hence the travel time down, we can make more of a dent in air travel which is a much worse system than an electric train.

That they're more efficient than the older models doesn't negate the increased power demand. If they're 20% more efficient than the older, slower train then they might be, say, 40% more efficient running at the slower speed. If you're going to use environmental impact as an argument in favour of high speed rail, that's important.

 

[Ianno87]

The speed issue isn't anywhere near as simple as that. High speed lines in mainland Europe are pretty much standardised at 300 - 320 km/h. Even the increase from 320 km/h to 360 km/h (the initial operating speed for HS2) involves substantial changes to standard rolling stock designs to accommodate 20% higher power and 20% more kinetic energy to be absorbed in crashworthiness. Similarly it involves higher powered substations (or more of them), more robust OLE and so on. There is absolutely no justification for the increase in speed - it's a piece of hubris by politicians at public expense. The capacity issue which HS2 is supposed to solve could have been perfectly well satisfied at 250 km/h, roughly halving the energy consumption per seat kilometre for a start.

Except you'd need more trains at 250km/h (and thus also more land for depots and sidings), and the line would be less successful in generating demand.

It's all very well having 20% less power consumption per train when you lose some of that benefit by the needing more trains

 

[norbitonflyer]

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

No, what we're building is a relief line bypassing the southern section of the WCML (initially between London and just north of Lichfield, later to Crewe) to speed up journeys to all over the northwest and Scotland, with a spur into Birmingham.

The M5 improved journey times to Cornwall, even though it goes no further than Exeter.

 

[edwin_m]

Even the increase from 320 km/h to 360 km/h (the initial operating speed for HS2) involves substantial changes to standard rolling stock designs to accommodate ... 20% more kinetic energy to be absorbed in crashworthiness.

Do the crashworthiness standards change at these speeds? Any on-board energy absorption that could conceivably be provided would be totally negligible compared to the impact energy of a collision at either of these speeds, so HS lines achieve safety by ensuring as far as possible that those collisions don't happen. This means measures such as no level crossings, automatic train protection, higher standards of fencing, and structures designed not to collapse in a derailment.

That they're more efficient than the older models doesn't negate the increased power demand. If they're 20% more efficient than the older, slower train then they might be, say, 40% more efficient running at the slower speed. If you're going to use environmental impact as an argument in favour of high speed rail, that's important.

It becomes less so if that power comes from nuclear or renewable sources, as should be largely the case by the time HS2 opens.

 

[A0]

And of course, instead of patching up their systems whilst leaving historic foibles intact, they rebuilt with the knowledge of what was important to maximise capacity - e.g. grade separation and having segregated lines for traffics of different characteristics. Not for nothing does the continent have a booming rail freight industry.

OT, because freight isn't carried on HS, but the rail freight share in the UK is not significantly different to Europe, so not sure why you think the continent has "a booming rail freight industry" when compared to the UK ?

 

[Ianno87]

OT, because freight isn't carried on HS, but the rail freight share in the UK is not significantly different to Europe, so not sure why you think the continent has "a booming rail freight industry" when compared to the UK ?

Stand on the WCML at Milton Keynes, or at somewhere like Ely, for an hour and then try and tell me the UK railfreight industry isn't booming...

 

[Grumpy Git]

Stand on the WCML at Milton Keynes, or at somewhere like Ely, for an hour and then try and tell me the UK railfreight industry isn't booming...

During the first 30 minutes of a weekday Euston to Crewe journey last week at approx. 3 p.m., I lost count of how many goods trains I saw.

 

[JonathanH]

Stand on the WCML at Milton Keynes, or at somewhere like Ely, for an hour and then try and tell me the UK railfreight industry isn't booming...

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

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

 

[Ianno87]

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

Quite true - it is container traffic that is the star performer.

 

[jfowkes]

You don't need to stand anywhere to know if freight is booming or not, and a few hours at one station won't tell you anything useful or representative anyway.

Luckily, there's a thing called quantitative data. The ORR produce good quality summaries of the data: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/freight-rail-usage-and-performance/

Basically overall freight tonnage was growing until 2013/2014 when coal traffic collapsed. Now we're back at 1980/1990s levels.

The number of freight movements and overall market share have also declined since the early 2000s.

 

[Mikey C]

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

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

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interesting reasons. Do other countries use existing tracks more to access existing city centre stations rather than building a line right into the city centre with a new or expanded station as is planned for many cities with HS2? If they do I can imagine this would reduce construction costs considerably as I assume construction costs are greatest in urban areas.

France used existing routes for the last 15km or so into Nord/Lyon termini (and also built a high speed by-pass to the east linking the two HSLs).
The HSL into Montparnasse involved rebuilding/reopening suburban/rural lines for the Atlantique route, and a major redevelopment of the terminus.
Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, Strasbourg all use existing access routes (with a new station on the Lyon HSL by-pass, at the airport).
Lille involved tunnelling under the city and a new station, for the through line from Paris to Calais/London.

The German, Belgian and Dutch HSLs are virtually all new lines in the country linking to existing main urban stations.
New underground stations at Schiphol (NL) and Frankfurt (DE) airports were a focus for HSL routes and services.
Antwerp, like Lille, involved a deep tunnel under the city and a new underground HSL station.
The whole Stuttgart node is being rebuilt in a huge project on an east-west axis to suit the through HSL routes, replacing the current north-facing terminus.
Berlin totally rebuilt its main-line access after unification and now has an unmatched cross/ring configuration via the new central Hbf.
Vienna has done the same to link all its long-distance lines (all planned to be 230km/h) together at one new Hbf station, also linked to the airport.

Spain is mostly new lines in empty country, but new HSL stations were built in Cordoba and Seville (complicated by the two gauges in use).
Both termini in Madrid (Atocha and Chamartin) were upgraded, and an HSL link between them is planned (parallelling the existing local line).
Italy has new HSL stations at strategic points in Florence and Rome, to allow through working avoiding termini, and there's a new underground station in Bologna.
Milan has developed the local east-west underground route via Porta Garibaldi for long-distance trains, avoiding the north-facing terminus at Centrale.

 

[Ianno87]

.

The number of freight movements and overall market share have also declined since the early 2000s.

Although that's in part because capacity to grow rail's market is constrained by limited network capacity to accommodate it, particularly on container flows that by their nature inevitably intersect the north-south main lines. Hence HS2.

 

[philosopher]

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

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

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

 

[matacaster]

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

Likely most of it. With tunneling there is no need to pay compensation to those who would have been displaced had it been above ground, such as demolished houses, businesses, providing site compounds. Legal challenges would have caused major delays and campaigners would have sought all sorts of judicial reviews etc. Years ago, Government just governed, now it seems anyone who is miffed can and does go to law to challenge decisions, so everything takes forever.

One suspects that no one would consider tunneling through the beautiful scenery around Barnsley.

 

[Watershed]

Likely most of it. With tunneling there is no need to pay compensation to those who would have been displaced had it been above ground, such as demolished houses, businesses, providing site compounds. Legal challenges would have caused major delays and campaigners would have sought all sorts of judicial reviews etc. Years ago, Government just governed, now it seems anyone who is miffed can and does go to law to challenge decisions, so everything takes forever.

The issue isn't judicial review - which has been available since the year dot.

The issue is that the government doesn't want to p*** off its major voter base in the Home Counties.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The issue is that the government doesn't want to p*** off its major voter base in the Home Counties.

Well it did in the recent Chesham and Amersham by election.

 

[matacaster]

The issue isn't judicial review - which has been available since the year dot.

The issue is that the government doesn't want to p*** off its major voter base in the Home Counties.

Yes, judicial review has been around for ages, but was hardly ever used. Now every man and his dog goes to law.

 

[Ianno87]

Likely most of it. With tunneling there is no need to pay compensation to those who would have been displaced had it been above ground, such as demolished houses, businesses, providing site compounds. Legal challenges would have caused major delays and campaigners would have sought all sorts of judicial reviews etc. Years ago, Government just governed, now it seems anyone who is miffed can and does go to law to challenge decisions, so everything takes forever.

One suspects that no one would consider tunneling through the beautiful scenery around Barnsley.

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

 

[edwin_m]

You don't need to stand anywhere to know if freight is booming or not, and a few hours at one station won't tell you anything useful or representative anyway.

Luckily, there's a thing called quantitative data. The ORR produce good quality summaries of the data: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/freight-rail-usage-and-performance/

Basically overall freight tonnage was growing until 2013/2014 when coal traffic collapsed. Now we're back at 1980/1990s levels.

The number of freight movements and overall market share have also declined since the early 2000s.

However the container traffic, which is growing, is concentrated on major routes like the southern WCML through Milton Keynes, which are exactly the ones that HS2 will provide extra capacity on. Coal traffic was mostly between collieries or more recently ports, and power stations and a few other destinations, but there hasn't been much of it in the parts of the country served by HS2 phase 1 since the domestic coal market largely disappeared in the 1960s.

 

[norbitonflyer]

OT, because freight isn't carried on HS,

Not OT at all, because HS2 is there to free up capacity on the existing WCML to meet the demand for more freight paths.

 

[zwk500]

Not OT at all, because HS2 is there to free up capacity on the existing WCML to meet the demand for more freight paths.

It is off-topic, because the question was why HSR is so expensive to build, not why we have to build it in the first place.

 

[Ianno87]

It is off-topic, because the question was why HSR is so expensive to build, not why we have to build it in the first place.

It would be even more expensive if it were built for freight, as gradients would be more limited (so even more tunnelling etc to get around this) and you'd need various extra chords on and off it in various places to take the freights anywhere useful.

 

[Mikey C]

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

It's partially about local residents, but more importantly about different attitudes towards the countryside, especially as the Chilterns is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. You can't just plough through such areas on the cheapest, direct route any more, and that applies to roads as well as rail, "society" won't accept it

If something like HS2 had been built in the 60s and 70s, it would have been on the surface, just like the Motorways built around that time

 

[edwin_m]

It's partially about local residents, but more importantly about different attitudes towards the countryside, especially as the Chilterns is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. You can't just plough through such areas on the cheapest, direct route any more, and that applies to roads as well as rail, "society" won't accept it

If something like HS2 had been built in the 60s and 70s, it would have been on the surface, just like the Motorways built around that time

Also the Chilterns doesn't really benefit from HS2 except by released capacity on local railways, which is a bit of a tenuous argument to try to convince most residents.

 

[miklcct]

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.

Serious? Only if the line is intended to run non-stop between London and Edinburgh it's actually useful to run at such high speed compared to 300 km/h.

 

[Mikey C]

Also the Chilterns doesn't really benefit from HS2 except by released capacity on local railways, which is a bit of a tenuous argument to try to convince most residents.

High speed railways do suffer from that issue, in that the affected people get all the downsides without many upsides, unlike motorways which are designed with regular junctions along the way.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

High speed railways do suffer from that issue, in that the affected people get all the downsides without many upsides, unlike motorways which are designed with regular junctions along the way.

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

 

[philosopher]

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

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