Britain's infrastructure is too expensive - Railways, Trams, and Roads all cost more to build in Britain

[mrmartin]

I did read that article.

The other thing that was apparent to me was how low the service frequencies are on many european HSLs. Take spain for example, while it's improved recently a bit with more operators joining, even the Barcelona Madrid HSL only had 1tph if that each way.

Given HS2 is meant to have at least 10 tph when finally built (or was), even if the cost is 5x higher than a Spanish HSL, you're getting similar 'cost per capacity'?

 

[lookapigeon]

The problem we have in terms of road repairs, and digging up roads is we don't seem to have any urgency and coordination.

I always loathe sitting at temporary traffic lights around an empty hole in the road and no one working. Why are people not working 7 days a week on coordinated shifts to get the job done and the traffic moving?

In Italy I saw they were replacing the traffic lights on a fairly busy main road in the city centre in Naples. No temporary traffic lights, excessive barriers and the traffic just flowed and people drove slightly less frenetically than usual. By the time we got back from our travails around the city in the evening, new lights in, all of the workmen gone.

England would have been weeks of work, a load of temporarily lights and tailed back and annoyed drivers.

 

[Class 170101]

UK station reopening costs seem to have rocketed since BR days. Cononley (platforms still in place) supposedly cost only £34,000 in 1988 (about £90,000 in today’s money). Steeton and Silsden (new platforms and a car park built) cost £270,000 in 1990 (£633,000 in today’s money). How much for a reopened, basic station today?

But standards have also changed. When Glasshoughton opened its cost was quoted at something like £1.2 million(?) as it included lifts and other Accessibility requirements. You would never get away with building those types of stations now.

 

[The exile]

Germany hasn't built any new HS stations (excepting Stuttgart), preferring to use existing city centre stations.

In general it didn’t have to, as the capacity was still available to do so -in several cases having been freed up by the removal of S-Bahn services from surface termini in previous major projects (Munich, Frankfurt and to a lesser extent Hamburg ). Cologne, where this hadn’t happened, required an extensive rebuild to cobble together a less than satisfactory arrangement at Deutz. Other expensive projects could be nicely bracketed under “Unity infrastructure” projects attracting massive subsidy.

 

[Red Dragon]

Removing democratic oversight from anything is an appalling idea. Although I completely sympathise with the logic behind it

I'm sorry, I'm not suggesting for one moment that democratic oversight should be removed, simply asking the politicians to state their views at the begining of the construction planning and design process, not after the Public Enquiry, and after the contracts are let and shovels have gone into the ground.
I chaired a government sponsored working party back in the nineties looking at how the public sector could get better value for money on projects. I invited the best procurer I had encountered to join the working party, BP, and the worst I had encountered, The Property Services Agency. I had a very interesting 6 months working through the problems with the committee which included the Dean of Engineering from Loughborough University, senior representatives from contractors and clients.
In my opinion, there is a sequence which is well known with major projects, make decisions early and get everyone committed and "inside the tent".
It's all too easy for politicians to say, "well I wouldn't have done it like that" and stop the project or dismember it, as we have seen recently.
In my experience politicians need to be given the opportunity to have their input at an early stage in the process and to commit to it and not interfere.
There also has to be a 10 and a 20 year national infrastructure plan in place with cross party long term support.
We must always keep the democratic process but, I believe, politicians should commit to the project and let the professionals complete it.

 

[Krokodil]

That's a learning point - if you want a successful HS project, avoid building lots of new city centre stations and try to integrate it with existing rail infrastructure. And if that applies in countries with relatively lower population densities, it certainly applies to densely populated countries with bureaucratic planning and permitting processes like the UK.

Euston isn't a new station. Nor is Manchester Piccadilly. Only Curzon Street is a "new city-centre station" (though many would dispute whether it's actually anywhere near the city centre, and it's on an old brownfield site). They're expanding older stations, yes but those stations were struggling as things stood with the existing traffic.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

In the case of HS2 , their isnt really any spare capacity in London to direct the extra HS2 services without stepping on someone else's feet, which is why the new extension to Euston is needed

AWC and WMT still not running anywhere near pre covid service so capacity not currently constrained out of Euston. An even truncated HS2 will take traffic away from WCML resulting in even less services running out of Euston so unless fares are set artificially low to attract traffic both routes risk financial losses.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

France has built a few simple out-of-town regional HS stations, but no major stations.

Lyon Part Dieu was new to accomodate the LGV (replacing Brotteaux) and Paris Austerlitz is being extensively rebuilt to act as an overflow for the Gare de Lyon. Lille Europe was new and not particularly "out of town' but annoyingly of less use to British passengers now that a lot of the domestic services start from Flandres. Marseille will have a new through station for Riviera services to avoid reversal in St. Charles.

 

[renegademaster]

AWC and WMT still not running anywhere near pre covid service so capacity not currently constrained out of Euston. An even truncated HS2 will take traffic away from WCML resulting in even less services running out of Euston so unless fares are set artificially low to attract traffic both routes risk financial losses.

Euston went from dangerously overcrowded to still pretty damned overcrowded after covid, and population growth will end up cancelling any lossing incurred from people working at home eventually

 

[brad465]

This FT opinion piece by John Burn-Murdoch recently also talked about the expense of infrastructure projects in the UK, citing HS2 in particular, down to what he's called "The NIMBY tax": basically the extra costs of trying to pander to NIMBYs (like more tunnelling) and project delays related to their burden. He also goes onto talk about how while US cities are well designed for car transport but not public transport, and European cities vice versa, the UK has the worst of both worlds (except London):

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

If phase 1 of HS2, the high-speed rail project connecting Britain’s capital to its second-largest city, is ever finished, it will be the world’s most expensive such scheme, coming in at a cool £396mn for each mile of track.

 

[The Planner]

AWC and WMT still not running anywhere near pre covid service so capacity not currently constrained out of Euston. An even truncated HS2 will take traffic away from WCML resulting in even less services running out of Euston so unless fares are set artificially low to attract traffic both routes risk financial losses.

Eh? Avanti are nigh on what the max they can run per hour.

 

[Krokodil]

AWC and WMT still not running anywhere near pre covid service so capacity not currently constrained out of Euston.

Only because Avanti don't have enough drivers to run the full planned service. Certainly not because of a lack of demand.

HS2 will abstract the intercity demand from many of Avanti's existing services, but this will leave room for growth between intermediate stations.

 

[geoffk]

Can anyone quantify the higher cost of H&S in Britain compared to the rest of Europe?

 

[BahrainLad]

In the case of HS2 , their isnt really any spare capacity in London to direct the extra HS2 services without stepping on someone else's feet, which is why the new extension to Euston is needed

Didn’t they need to build the RER in Paris to release enough termini capacity for TGV services? A different scale of investment entirely.

 

[Red Dragon]

Maybe strict adherence to agreed design freeze dates would help a lot too. I did this, eventually, to my wife when I bought a piece of land at auction in 1977 and built a house for us. She devoured my contingency in one fell swoop and then came back for more !

 

[CdBrux]

Didn’t they need to build the RER in Paris to release enough termini capacity for TGV services? A different scale of investment entirely.

And almost certainly not included in the comparison.
The 'NIMBY' tax and how it may well be easier for them to challenge, delay, have mountains of reports written, get cost increasing design changes, etc... vs other countries should also recognise UK is more densely populated so is likely to have many more people impacted by new infrastructure for which some mitigation is needed. It would be interesting to compare the amount of the high speed lines in France constructed in tunnels / deep cuttings vs HS2. For example when I used to travel by Eurostar anecdotally I would say you saw quite a lot of French countryside and very little of Kent

 

[Krokodil]

Of course the comparison is with one of France's newest lines. It didn't need the RER work because that had already been done decades before. Expanding an existing system is usually cheaper than starting from scratch because you can piggyback on the existing infrastructure. NPR (dubbed "HS3" by some) would be cheaper per mile than HS2 because it would use the sections running into Manchester which were built for HS2.

 

[CdBrux]

Of course the comparison is with one of France's newest lines. It didn't need the RER work because that had already been done decades before. Expanding an existing system is usually cheaper than starting from scratch because you can piggyback on the existing infrastructure. NPR (dubbed "HS3" by some) would be cheaper per mile than HS2 because it would use the sections running into Manchester which were built for HS2.

Would NPR cost per mile constructed include the HS2 parts?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would NPR cost per mile constructed include the HS2 parts?

Any tunnelling for NPR will be very expensive under the Pennines, and threading Warrington won't be cheap.
There's still the "Bradford option" being studied which, if built, is also bound to be expensive.
There's no clear view of what is needed in Liverpool and Leeds to handle HS2/NPR traffic.

 

[BrianW]

Maybe strict adherence to agreed design freeze dates would help a lot too. I did this, eventually, to my wife when I bought a piece of land at auction in 1977 and built a house for us. She devoured my contingency in one fell swoop and then came back for more !

Thank you, Red Dragon, for your erudite voice of experience as shown in earlier posts. I'm wondering here how your wife liked being 'project managed'? I'm hoping she has appreciated your accommodating attitude and actions and not become your ex-wife after all you have done for (to?) her

 

[Krokodil]

Would NPR cost per mile constructed include the HS2 parts?

No, it would only include the extra infrastructure, which means that much of the expensive work around Manchester won't be counted when the average is worked out. Obviously the counter is Liverpool which will function the other way around because NPR infrastructure will benefit HS2 services.

 

[CdBrux]

No, it would only include the extra infrastructure, which means that much of the expensive work around Manchester won't be counted when the average is worked out. Obviously the counter is Liverpool which will function the other way around because NPR infrastructure will benefit HS2 services.

so you think the miles will include the already built HS2 tracks and the cost clearly won't? I would suggest the cost per miles built won't include the miles of the HS2 track

 

[Krokodil]

so you think the miles will include the already built HS2 tracks and the cost clearly won't? I would suggest the cost per miles built won't include the miles of the HS2 track

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if building plain line costs £1x/mile and building in cities costs £2x/mile, then a project that doesn't need to build in cities because the infrastructure already exists is going to cost £1x/mile compared with a project that is partially in cities that therefore averages out at £1.5x/mile (more or less, depending upon the proportions).

Of course when BCRs are considered, you would indeed only be considering the cost of the new infrastructure, compared with the full benefit of the new connections it generates. Infill electrification is the most obvious example of this, 1 mile of wiring can save 100 miles of diesel.

 

[CdBrux]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if building plain line costs £1x/mile and building in cities costs £2x/mile, then a project that doesn't need to build in cities because the infrastructure already exists is going to cost £1x/mile compared with a project that is partially in cities that therefore averages out at £1.5x/mile (more or less, depending upon the proportions).

Of course when BCRs are considered, you would indeed only be considering the cost of the new infrastructure, compared with the full benefit of the new connections it generates. Infill electrification is the most obvious example of this, 1 mile of wiring can save 100 miles of diesel.

ah, ok, I misunderstood. As already said much of the the non HS2 parts of NPR are not exactly through flat open countryside!

 

[Krokodil]

ah, ok, I misunderstood. As already said much of the the non HS2 parts of NPR are not exactly through flat open countryside!

No, but other than whatever is planned for Liverpool they're not trying to get into Central Manchester either.

 

[snowball]

No, but other than whatever is planned for Liverpool they're not trying to get into Central Manchester either.

The NPR approach to Piccadilly from Standedge will have to be either through built-up areas or under them. Only Piccadilly to Ardwick is provided by HS2.

 

[Krokodil]

The NPR approach to Piccadilly from Standedge will have to be either through built-up areas or under them. Only Piccadilly to Ardwick is provided by HS2.

True, if the eastern bit of it ever goes ahead.

 

[Parham Wood]

In the curious mixture of free market privatisation and government micromanagement we now have, there is nobody to take top level risk. There isn't a BR and the civil service doesn't have the expertise (or the culture). The civil service is told when starting a project (I have been there) that it mustn't increase head count, and consultants and contractors are employed to manage the whole thing. They won't take real risk, and the usual tactic employed is to create a special purpose company that feeds the profits to the partner companies that got the job, whilst hiving financial risk off to the government. The whole project is then developed on the basis of as near 100% mitigation of every non-financial risk as can possibly be achieved, so that those in charge can't be criticised if something goes wrong. The cost escalates and every now and then a head rolls, but the money still keeps flowing the same way. You can see this very clearly in HS2, but it applies to lots of other smaller projects as well.

As you illustrate the Civil Service does not have the ability to either manage the top level risk or indeed be able to recognise that it needs to review and change the way things are managed. Sad to say I do not see an end to this wasteful British practice. It is always a cop out for any manager to employ consultants to manage projects, who as you say, manage things so they do not take any risk and at the same time the employing manager can "blame" the consultants for any issues. I have seen companies where top management will not approve an employee raised project proposal or a way of working change but if the same is presented as recommendations from hired consultants they go with it. Consultants have their place but they work for their own company and they are incentivised to make as much profit for it as they can without appearing to the client to have over inflated things. Consultants provide a skill set and additional labour resource but they still need to be managed.

The cost of new kit in BR days was inflated by variation orders - the same indecision you mention above.
Its not a rail, government or public sector thing. The private sector IT project I am working on is 19 months late due to lack of initial analysis, no resource planning, and variations in scope and resourcing during the project life. I am just glad I am paid by the hour.
Seems management just cant stop fiddling. Someone needs ruler and slap the wrists of meddling executives with a sharp 'Stop it!'

This is the difference between good and bad IT departments and good and bad company management. I have worked for several companies where large IT projects were delivered on time and budget. These were well-scoped and managed with any dithering by the departments for whom the project was destined being firmly nipped in the bud by the ball CEOs, needless to say very successful Footsie companies. Conversely I have seen a head of IT who did not have a clue but fortunately her direct reports did and could mitigate most but not all of her bad decisions. This was a public service. Finally whilst on BR I saw the BR region head of Telecoms promote designing his own telephone exchanges despite there being much better systems available in the marketplace. Needless these did not work properly with the loss of how much money I do not know and were rapidly replaced with off the shelf systems.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Only because Avanti don't have enough drivers to run the full planned service. Certainly not because of a lack of demand.

HS2 will abstract the intercity demand from many of Avanti's existing services, but this will leave room for growth between intermediate stations.

WMT are already running a reduced service from lower demand and expectation is we are at the "new " steady state now so where is this growth going to materialise from that will need an increase in services to fill the vacated HS2 paths?

 

[Krokodil]

WMT are already running a reduced service from lower demand and expectation is we are at the "new " steady state now so where is this growth going to materialise from that will need an increase in services to fill the vacated HS2 paths?

Plenty of FOCs will be very grateful for any extra paths on the WCML for a start.