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

[ExRes]

I accept that the rest isn't looking so hopeful, but there's at least a chance of there being someone other than Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson in charge when that comes around.

But could the replacements be totally anti high speed though? What an irony if people were to look back and wish for the kind and HS friendly Johnson & Sunak

 

[jfowkes]

You don’t need austerity, to have a preference for 1 on benefit cost ratio grounds.

I'm not convinced BCR analysis can capture the benefits and costs of something as big as HS2. A multi-decade build time and an even longer operation time, covering a vast area of the country - the process just wasn't designed to capture something on that scale. Never mind that it doesn't put anywhere near enough weight on the environmental benefits.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not convinced BCR analysis can capture the benefits and costs of something as big as HS2. A multi-decade build time and an even longer operation time, covering a vast area of the country - the process just wasn't designed to capture something on that scale. Never mind that it doesn't put anywhere near enough weight on the environmental benefits.

This.

 

[Mikey C]

I think connectivity between northern cities and down to Birmingham is probably the higher priority. It's risky to just lump "northern city leaders" together though - they have very different and often competing requirements. If I was leading Leeds and West Yorkshire for example I might not be all that bothered about getting to Manchester, and in fact I might regard it as most important that Manchester doesn't get HS2 before Leeds or instead of Leeds.

Ultimately the Northern cities are competing as much as they are cooperating. A bunch of silly southerners who think they've done the whole of the north a solid by running a fast train to Manchester might not be best placed to judge what the priorities are

The BBC have moved to Manchester (Salford), that's the north ticked off

 

[The Ham]

You don’t need austerity, to have a preference for 1 on benefit cost ratio grounds.

Indeed, HS2 and whilst I fully agree that NPR should be a high priority if HS2 isn't providing the funding for some major stations then the costs for NPR rise putting it at risk of being cancelled and is not having anything.

 

[BayPaul]

There seem to be essentially two ways of thinking about high speed rail in the UK, both of them true and valid.

1. London is the economic centre of the UK and has a desperate need for higher capacity public transport. HS2 is vital for providing that, primarily as a bypass for the WCML.
2. The cities of the North and the Midlands desperately need better public transport connectivity, both in journey time and capacity. HS2/NPR are vital for providing that.

Ideally we'd work out a way to do both without it being played out as a competition over money or resources. But we're stuck both an austerity mindset and a North vs. South mindset and it sucks.

Agree completely. Both are needed, fighting about which is more important is just more time wasting. HS2 is well under way - great. Now it's time to get NPR (or whatever it's called now) designed, so it can also be built.

 

[LittleAH]

There seem to be essentially two ways of thinking about high speed rail in the UK, both of them true and valid.

1. London is the economic centre of the UK and has a desperate need for higher capacity public transport. HS2 is vital for providing that, primarily as a bypass for the WCML.
2. The cities of the North and the Midlands desperately need better public transport connectivity, both in journey time and capacity. HS2/NPR are vital for providing that.

Ideally we'd work out a way to do both without it being played out as a competition over money or resources. But we're stuck both an austerity mindset and a North vs. South mindset and it sucks.

The issues is that things such as high speed rail are a national infrastructure project, but every single local/regional stakeholder wants a piece of the pie. Each of those stakeholders then can delay the process, negatively impact the PR around a project, call for a review/inquiry that adds time and costs, declare that something has to go via a different route to suit their own views (I mean this thread has basically axed the eastern leg of HS2) and make arduous demands for their support.

We're seeing that played out now by the likes of West Midland Mayor Andy Street, with his whole connect the West Midland at the expense of the Eastern leg.

Best way forward is to have two consultation periods and then just crack on with it.

 

[HSTEd]

Best way forward is to have two consultation periods and then just crack on with it.

And what happens if the estimates that drove the consultation turn out to be junk?

You end up with a long drawn out consultation that goes on for years because things are impossible to cancel.

 

[Ianno87]

And what happens if the estimates that drove the consultation turn out to be junk?

You end up with a long drawn out consultation that goes on for years because things are impossible to cancel.

You don't consult on the cost of land, merely the quantity of land you require. And if you need more, you seek an Additional Provision to cover it.

 

[HSTEd]

You don't consult on the cost of land, merely the quantity of land you require. And if you need more, you seek an Additional Provision to cover it.

The problem is the scheme is optimised based on certain assumptions as to the cost of land.

If the cost of land is much higher than projected you would not build that scheme, you would build another that used less?

 

[Ianno87]

The problem is the scheme is optimised based on certain assumptions as to the cost of land.

If the cost of land is much higher than projected you would not build that scheme, you would build another that used less?

The land take is determined by what is optimal for a high speed alignment. The alignment will be influenced by types of land (e.g. avoiding residential property, ancient scheduled movements, SSSIs etc) and physical constraints like topology and minimising use of major structures or engineering features are far more significant influences than the cost of that land.

Generally "how much does that land cost" doesn't come into it (apart from maybe city centre locations where land take has quite a significant influence on scheme cost but brings opportunities for development revenue once the railway is complete)

 

[HSTEd]

The land take is determined by what is optimal for a high speed alignment. The alignment will be influenced by types of land (e.g. avoiding residential property, ancient scheduled movements, SSSIs etc) and physical constraints like topology and minimising use of major structures or engineering features are far more significant influences than the cost of that land.

You are making an assumption about the cost of land in relation to engineering features that does not necessarily hold.

For example see the decision to abandon the surface alignment along the NNML in favour of a tunnel.

Land seizure costs and disruption payments continue to climb much faster than tunneling costs do.

HS2 has now reached the point where it costs sums of money of similar orders of magnitude to continuous tunnel schemes in Europe.

 

[Ianno87]

You are making an assumption about the cost of land in relation to engineering features that does not necessarily hold.

For example see the decision to abandon the surface alignment along the NNML in favour of a tunnel.

Land seizure costs and disruption payments continue to climb much faster than tunneling costs do.

The NNML that was nothing to do with land cost. It was the engineering cost and disruption of all the surface rebuilding of roads etc that would have been required, when it was judged for not much more money you could stick it in a tunnel and avoid all the hassle, and the permanent environmental impact on the surface.

 

[HSTEd]

The NNML that was nothing to do with land cost. It was the engineering cost and disruption of all the surface rebuilding of roads etc that would have been required, when it was judged for not much more money you could stick it in a tunnel and avoid all the hassle, and the permanent environmental impact on the surface.

The physical engineering costs of the surface rebuilding works were still smaller than the tunnel.

A road bridge you seize, demolish, rebuild and return (a replacement) to the owner, is still a property seizure. Disruption compensation is still a property seizure cost.

And environmental impact costs are still property seizure costs - they aren't an "engineering cost".

If the only parameter that matters was engineering costs HS2 would cross the Chilterns on a chinese style viaduct.

 

[Ianno87]

The physical engineering costs of the surface rebuilding works were still smaller than the tunnel.

That's what I said.

A road bridge you seize, demolish and return (a replacement) to the owner, is still a property seizure cost.

No it's not. It's construction cost.

Disruption compensation is still a property seizure cost.

No it's not. It's compensation.

And environmental impact costs are still property seizure costs - they aren't an "engineering cost".

No they're not. They're not quantifiable as money.

If the only parameter that matters was engineering costs HS2 would cross the Chilterns on a chinese style viaduct.

I didn't say it was the only parameters. Disruption, environmental impact etc are too.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Binning off the eastern leg and creating a ‘C’ between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would be disastrous to Sheffield in the long run. Sheffield would likely lose much of its cross country services as the longer PAX flows on that market would be rerouted to use a 'C-shape' HS2/3 network to come from Edinburgh/Newcastle down ECML (upgraded or not) to York then pick up the high speed C via Leeds & Mcr to Brum (where they could change to slower classic connections onwards to Bristol or South Coast if Brum isn't final destination).

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t have any serious NPR connections either.

 

[jfowkes]

Binning off the eastern leg and creating a ‘C’ between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would be disastrous to Sheffield in the long run. Sheffield would likely lose much of its cross country services as the longer PAX flows on that market would be rerouted to use a 'C-shape' HS2/3 network to come from Edinburgh/Newcastle down ECML (upgraded or not) to York then pick up the high speed C via Leeds & Mcr to Brum (where they could change to slower classic connections onwards to Bristol or South Coast if Brum isn't final destination).

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t have any serious NPR connections either.

Nottingham and Derby would also lose out on fast journeys to/from Birmingham and Leeds/the North, something that in my opinion they desperately lack.

 

[The Ham]

The problem is the scheme is optimised based on certain assumptions as to the cost of land.

If the cost of land is much higher than projected you would not build that scheme, you would build another that used less?

Land costs are always going to be a variable which is likely to change (most likely upwards), and unless they increase significantly (and most land is undeveloped land, so very low value even if it doubled in price) then chances are the land optimisation would likely be built into any designs.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Didn't all the land in Britain belong to everyone until some toffs decided to build a fence around it and claim it was theirs, (I'm sure other 50 somethings will have studied the "Enclosures Act" in "O" level geography)?

 

[Annetts key]

From an economic or engineering point of view, the best system is to have a continuous programme of works. And none of this start/stop/pause/dither/start/stop/pause/dither nonsense which costs money (or reduces quality of the works) for no good reason. Engineering contractors and more importantly their staff are not going to stay around if they are not being paid. They will look for work elsewhere. Then if you want to start work again, it’s difficult to get the quality of staff you need.

Construction should take place simultaneously at many locations, not at one end of the other. Unless complex interlinked engineering is needed, work at different locations is does not normally have to be sequential. The only advantage in getting one section of line finished before another is if you can run a meaningful train service.

And what happens if the estimates that drove the consultation turn out to be junk?

Most estimates on projects like this are junk. The estimated cost of the GWML is a good example where the estimated cost was way off the actual cost. There are many reasons. But generally the longer the timeframe between when something is planned and actual construction, there is very likely to be an increase in land and other costs because so called economic growth often depends on inflation.

 

[Grumpy Git]

........ But generally the longer the timeframe between when something is planned and actual construction, there is very likely to be an increase in land and other costs because so called economic growth often depends on inflation.

I have a job currently (started in May) which is identical to one I started last September, the cost of components is generally a minimum of 5% higher than then and one item (a pretty standard open-frame touchscreen), is 26% more!

Then customers moan when you increase your prices.

 

[RT4038]

Didn't all the land in Britain belong to everyone until some toffs decided to build a fence around it and claim it was theirs, (I'm sure other 50 somethings will have studied the "Enclosures Act" in "O" level geography)?

It was much more complicated than that. 'Common Land' was under the control of the Lord of the Manor, but the commoners had legal rights to pasture, grazing etc. This was not al of the land, as ownership goes back to the Domesday book.

 

[squizzler]

I am late to the this thread but have recently been revisiting a few articles from the excellent Pedestrian Observations blog.

Its author demonstrates time and time again that the costs of construction in the "Anglosphere" are vastly higher than in other countries by multiples, and that takes into account all differing geography and this effect includes both urban and intercity railway construction. This is a skilled mathematician with experience living in several parts of the world, and puts the blame squarely on cultural factors and English language places in particular being unwilling to learn from parts of the world that are consistently getting better value.

Well worth a read. The upshot is that as a nation we should not be reducing our aspiration for new rail construction, or descoping projects, we should just be demanding the costs be reduced. Perhaps it is a British problem we would rather moan about the price of stuff or go without rather than haggle?

 

[RT4038]

I am late to the this thread but have recently been revisiting a few articles from the excellent Pedestrian Observations blog.

Its author demonstrates time and time again that the costs of construction in the "Anglosphere" are vastly higher than in other countries by multiples, and that takes into account all differing geography and this effect includes both urban and intercity railway construction. This is a skilled mathematician with experience living in several parts of the world, and puts the blame squarely on cultural factors and English language places in particular being unwilling to learn from parts of the world that are consistently getting better value.

Well worth a read. The upshot is that as a nation we should not be reducing our aspiration for new rail construction, or descoping projects, we should just be demanding the costs be reduced. Perhaps it is a British problem we would rather moan about the price of stuff or go without rather than haggle?

From what I can see it is just another 'If the people affected by the proposed new rail construction didn't matter, then the construction would be a lot cheaper'. This may well be right, but it is not our culture to do this. The 'Anglosphere' is unwilling to learn from other aspects of authoritarian rule practices by other countries too, which may also mean we miss out on more consistently better value - does this make us somehow wrong or bad?

 

[squizzler]

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried, to the extent I would question if you have even bothered to follow the link.

The author of Pedestrian Observations co-authored a comparison website for infrastructure, Transit Costs Project, which compares the costs in all countries they can find records for. HSR data analysis is here and table 5 (average cost per mile by country) show highly democratic and federalised Switzerland as well as Spain Norway, Belgian and France are the cheapest places to build HSR outside Morocco. It is easy to see that UK is a gross outlier in cost terms, and if that was addressed the country could afford a fantastic HSR network.

The website, especially its data visualisation tools, are worth a play, both for HSR and urban railway construction costs, and in neither does the UK cover itself in glory.

Edit: I have been asked to paste a preview of the site in question, here is the introduction to HSR section and then third quote is the introduction to the data visualisations:

High Speed Rail​

We have started exploring High Speed Rail costs, and below, we will share with you our initial database as well as some analyses soon.

The cost data in our HSR database is for civil infrastructure, systems, stations, and overheads, but not rolling stock or financing charges.

We have not included lines that were canceled, even if their design or physical construction began. This is because their costs tend to be upward-biased, the higher than average costs usually being the reason for their cancellation.

Differently from our subway costs database, we include more historic lines in our HSR database; and we have almost complete data for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Korea. Taiwan, Netherlands and UK data are complete. On the other hand, it has been difficult to find tunnel and viaduct percentages especially for the ongoing projects.

High Speed Rail Data Preliminary Analysis​

Here are some visualizations of our data. The data covers only a portion of high speed rail projects in each country and, in many instances, is not representative of all the HSR lines constructed in that country. Please get in touch with us if you have more accurate or complete data on the lines we have on our database, or additional lines.

 

[RT4038]

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried, to the extent I would question if you have even bothered to follow the link.

Read quite a bit actually. Try this page https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/11/13/surplus-extraction/

 

[ABB125]

Read quite a bit actually. Try this page https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/11/13/surplus-extraction/

And what is incorrect in that article?

 

[RT4038]

And what is incorrect in that article?

Never said it was incorrect - it is the author's opinion. It does presume to treat those affected by the construction that they don't matter, for the common good no doubt. That is fine until you (or me) are the ones adversely affected. Democracies can still be tyrannies to individuals. Perhaps in the 'Anglosphere' individual rights are more important than in some other countries, democracies or not. Sorry that we are unwilling to learn otherwise.

 

[SynthD]

Well worth a read. The upshot is that as a nation we should not be reducing our aspiration for new rail construction, or descoping projects, we should just be demanding the costs be reduced. Perhaps it is a British problem we would rather moan about the price of stuff or go without rather than haggle?

That lines up with a comment or two several pages back that suggested that European countries don't accurately cost their work, that their governments subsidise part of the construction and risk. Perhaps the British and Spanish governments both misestimate, and the true figure is somewhere in the middle.

 

[BayPaul]

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried, to the extent I would question if you have even bothered to follow the link.

The author of Pedestrian Observations co-authored a comparison website for infrastructure, Transitcosts, which compares the costs in all countries they can find records for. HSR data analysis is here and table 5 (average cost per mile by country) show highly democratic and federalised Switzerland as well as Spain Norway, Belgian and France are the cheapest places to build HSR outside Morocco. It is easy to see that UK is a gross outlier in cost terms, and if that was addressed the country could afford a fantastic HSR network.

The website, especially its data visualisation tools, are worth a play, both for HSR and urban railway construction costs, and in neither does the UK cover itself in glory.

It's been said before, but worth saying again, that the UK (and England in particular) is a very crowded country - a huge percentage of the country is either built up or national park / AONB etc - Pretty or City if you like - both are expensive to build rails through. This is not necessarily true of the other countries on this list - Spain and France in particular.