Have railways became too expensive to build/improve?

[tbtc]

BR was all about standardisation by the time it got to the 70's and it served it well but the creation of Railtrack lead by outsiders who had contempt for anything BR had done and had to reinvent the wheel and then that was when the rot set in

Railtrack is gone, 2002 was over twenty years ago

We’ve had a publicly owned Network Rail for the past two decades

NR isn’t far short of being in existence for half as long as British Rail’s total lifespan

But people still come back to Railtrack as an excuse for why things aren’t working in 2023, maybe even when NR reaches the fifty years that BR managed we’ll have people excusing them because of those five or so Railtrack years in between BR and NR

I’m not defending Railtrack, I’m just pointing out that the excuses I keep seeing were valid in 2003.., much less so in 2013… feel like straw clutching in 2023…

Standardisation like making Class 16x deliberately incompatible with previous classes?

Great point!

Let’s not pretend that these are new problems

 

[Brubulus]

Railtrack is gone, 2002 was over twenty years ago

We’ve had a publicly owned Network Rail for the past two decades

NR isn’t far short of being in existence for half as long as British Rail’s total lifespan

But people still come back to Railtrack as an excuse for why things aren’t working in 2023, maybe even when NR reaches the fifty years that BR managed we’ll have people excusing them because of those five or so Railtrack years in between BR and NR

I’m not defending Railtrack, I’m just pointing out that the excuses I keep seeing were valid in 2003.., much less so in 2013… feel like straw clutching in 2023…



Great point!

Let’s not pretend that these are new problems

It's not a new problem, but the culture installed by Railtrack/NR until mid 2010s of desperately trying to reinvent the wheel has made the problem a lot worse. Just look at the range of electrification equipment used in 1981-1991 vs 2013-2023.

 

[HSTEd]

Standardisation like making Class 16x deliberately incompatible with previous classes?

All NSE did that broke compatibility with earlier classes was transposing two pins on the coupler.
Changing it is a trivial job, and has been done repeatedly on the Class 158 and Class 159 fleets as units move between the two.


It is nothing like the deliberate incompatibility created in modern train fleets, which there is absolutely no chance of fixing.

EDIT:

To make a contribution on topic.

Projects are too complicated, they require huge numbers of moving parts because they interact with the public in so many ways.

Bridges, level crossings, utility movements, trees cut down etc etc etc.

As is increasingly being demonstrated it may be cheaper just to accept the bigger engineering challenges if they reduce these "soft" factors.
See the HS2 proposal to use the New North Main Line alignment being scrapped in favour of a tunnel to avoid doing anything to the clearance issues.

If a railway was hypothetically built in tunnels so that only intervention shafts were required every couple of kilometres, and stations were built in sunk boxes, you'd have a harder to engineer railway but it would have far fewer contact points with everyone else.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

national bankruptcy?

OK true. But how likely is that? Surely, wiring up routes, investing in rolling stock etc, would increase the productivity of the country at large? Taking light rail as a focus for a moment, can we really say the Sheffield/Manchester/Nottingham tram routes for example, have not contributed to some extent to the local economies? Surely, they haven't been a complete waste of money...

 

[Western Sunset]

Design standards seem to change almost continually.

Project gets started under standard "x". By the time the various consultations, bidding process, funding, etc are completed, standards have changed to "y". So things have to be reassessed, so increased £££.

 

[HSTEd]

Design standards seem to change almost continually.

Project gets started under standard "x". By the time the various consultations, bidding process, funding, etc are completed, standards have changed to "y". So things have to be reassessed, so increased £££.

Projects taking literal decades hardly helps this.

If a railway could go from concept to open in a couple of years then there would be no time for standards to change.

 

[zwk500]

Design standards seem to change almost continually.

Project gets started under standard "x". By the time the various consultations, bidding process, funding, etc are completed, standards have changed to "y". So things have to be reassessed, so increased £££.

Tbf projects only need to meet the standards they were designed under, although the shifting goalposts and lack of firm commitments hinders this.

 

[Brubulus]

Projects taking literal decades hardly helps this.

If a railway could go from concept to open in a couple of years then there would be no time for standards to change.

Construction can be very quick and the "system" can move surprisingly quickly when it wants to, such as Okehampton, though the existing, in place railway meant it was treated more like a regular track renewal project than an entirely new line and all the bickering between various interest groups that such a new line would cause. HS2 has been handicapped completely by the refusal to build the entire line in a single phase, phased construction tends to be a complete and utter waste of time and money while a single phase project can use resources far more efficiently in general - for example the sharing of TBMs across tunnels is far easier if there is no 5 year gap. On the legal side, the bar for judicial review needs to be properly and promptly applied - is the decision made so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it or there was some sort of massive cover up/blatant illegality. We should look more closely at what means that other countries can do a project quicker or cheaper than us without immediately coming to the conclusion that we could never do any things that said country does and we should use tried and tested foreign designs and technology where useful to speed up a project or reduce costs. HS1 cost around 7 times less than HS2 phase 1 while being almost half the length and including a tunnel under the Thames. Inflation obviously counts for some of that but it should still only be around 4x the cost unless the political risk with HS2 is considered to need a massive cost uplift. A very useful technique to avoid specification changes is to get inertia into the project quickly so it becomes far harder to stop or modify.

 

[Starmill]

It seems impossible to get anything built in this country. Railways, houses, you name it. And yet we have grinning politicians that have somehow conned themselves to believing Britain has "world class" this and "world class that"...

What I want to know, is what on earth will happen if we actually said "sod it" and just spent money? What if we just did things like splurge on electrification, grade separate bottlenecks, reopen closed lines. What is the worst thing that could possibly happen?

It all reminds me of that American Psycho meme, to paraphrase:

"Why isn't it possible, to invest in the railways?
HMG: "It's just not."
"Why not you stupid b*****d?"

In theory, hyperinflation. In reality we would only run into problems if we decided to rebuild the entire network to UIC GC gauge with OLE.

However it is a political choice that the UK should pursue a level of ongoing spending capable of being covered (or nearly covered) by the revenue the government earns.

Perhaps a slightly more likely near term consequence is that lots of expensive infrastructure gets built but is scarcely used, and scarcely useful because of its immutable circumstances.

I'm looking at you, Reston, Soham, Worcestershire Parkway, Bermuda Park, Blackridge, East Midlands Parkway, Chatelherault, Kelvindale, Conon Bridge... And those are just the new station examples.

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps a slightly more likely near term consequence is that lots of expensive infrastructure gets built but is scarcely used, and scarcely useful because of its immutable circumstances.

Although this is a fair comment, the counterpoint is that you don't build infrastructure you need now, but will need in 50-100 years.

I'm looking at you, Reston, Soham, Worcestershire Parkway, Bermuda Park, Blackridge, East Midlands Parkway, Chatelherault, Kelvindale, Conon Bridge... And those are just the new station examples.

Several of these are political projects and would never have been built if the railway was given a budget and told to get on with it.

 

[Starmill]

Although this is a fair comment, the counterpoint is that you don't build infrastructure you need now, but will need in 50-100 years.

Indeed, although of course this is precisely the objective of demonstrating positive business cases, and a good reason not to jettison the process.

 

[Taunton]

I live part of the year in Spain and keep an eye on all the infrastructure projects that are proposed or are being constructed there. The costs of some of these mammoth projects are far below those in the UK. I appreciate that land values are much lower in most parts of Spain

Land value is often blamed, but is not normally key. The costs of the Crossrail station at Bond Street came out at six times estimate. And yet that bought hardly any land ...

 

[geoffk]

Some good points made here and recurring themes like re-inventing the wheel, design standards regularly changing, lack of standardisation (in rolling stock etc.) Continental railways don't require their railways to be fenced (the current 6-ft high steel fencing must cost far more to install and maintain than the traditional post-and-wire) and how many of them would "stop the job" for trespassers on the line? The DDA (now the Equality Act) has required expenditure on station ramps and lifts, a welcome improvement in accessibility of course but at a cost. The railway bears the full cost of level crossings even though problems associated with them are always caused by road users. What's clear is that many of the changes which would enable costs to be reduced would need a change in the law and I can't see many politicians grasping this nettle for fear of the Daily Mail headlines.

 

[Starmill]

Several of these are political projects and would never have been built if the railway was given a budget and told to get on with it.

This is of course true, but the appraisal methodology is relatively effective at preventing the weakest cases from being funded (though certainly that's failed in some of those such as Reston). We can't just chuck it out and allow one body to make such enormous spending decisions without any set process.

Continental railways don't require their railways to be fenced (the current 6-ft high steel fencing must cost far more to install and maintain than the traditional post-and-wire) and how many of them would "stop the job" for trespassers on the line?

Palisade fencing with the steel spikes isn't an absolute requirement, although it is very effective as an anti-trespass measure. Cheaper galvanised wire fencing isn't unacceptable, especially if not in a major population area and not even an electrified line.

 

[zwk500]

This is of course true, but the appraisal methodology is relatively effective at preventing the weakest cases from being funded (though certainly that's failed in some of those such as Reston).

It's being watered down all the time, politicians say so politicians get. It's no wonder our political realm is very childish.

We can't just chuck it out and allow one body to make such enormous spending decisions without any set process.

Not suggesting for a moment that there is no oversight or accountability for the decision making. However politicians should be setting *policy* only, not making operational decisions. E.g. Telling NR to prioritise modal shift on suburban commuters over intercity routes, or telling NR to prioritise routes that compete against domestic flights over 'social good' routes.

 

[Starmill]

The railway bears the full cost of level crossings even though problems associated with them are always caused by road users. What's clear is that many of the changes which would enable costs to be reduced would need a change in the law and I can't see many politicians grasping this nettle for fear of the Daily Mail headlines.

Depends how you look at it. When the crossings are upgraded, they're inevitably closed for longer. That means that the road users are bearing a portion of the cost in their own way.

You're right of course to point out the safety disparity in general, though.

 

[zwk500]

Depends how you look at it. When the crossings are upgraded, they're inevitably closed for longer. That means that the roaf users arw bearing a portion of the cost in their own way.

You're right of course to point out the safety disparity in general, though.

Although the ever increasing trend toward full-barrier MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV rather than more cost-effective AHB crossings is driven by driver's increasingly riskier behaviours. If we could trust people not to try their luck, the LX audits would probably come out with a lot more options than just 'Full military-scale defensive fortifications'

 

[BrianW]

Depends how you look at it. When the crossings are upgraded, they're inevitably closed for longer. That means that the road users are bearing a portion of the cost in their own way.

You're right of course to point out the safety disparity in general, though.

Although the ever increasing trend toward full-barrier MCB-OD or MCB-CCTV rather than more cost-effective AHB crossings is driven by driver's increasingly riskier behaviours. If we could trust people not to try their luck, the LX audits would probably come out with a lot more options than just 'Full military-scale defensive fortifications'

Evidence for these?

Regarding expense generally, we have the 'systems' we demand. Risk aversion, materials and labour costs, lack of standardisation, lack of continuity of 'programmes' with related knowledge, experience, 'politics', newts, bats, each maybe only a percent or so, adds up.. ?

I note a fatality recently on HS2- not just a statistic or a cost- a tragedy.

 

[The Planner]

Evidence for these?

Regarding expense generally, we have the 'systems' we demand. Risk aversion, materials and labour costs, lack of standardisation, lack of continuity of 'programmes' with related knowledge, experience, 'politics', newts, bats, each maybe only a percent or so, adds up.. ?

I note a fatality recently on HS2- not just a statistic or a cost- a tragedy.

Crossings will tend to be closed longer when upgraded due to strike in points for trains to trigger the barrier sequence being altered so the barriers come down earlier.

 

[BrianW]

Crossings will tend to be closed longer when upgraded due to strike in points for trains to trigger the barrier sequence being altered so the barriers come down earlier.

Thank you. (Why) is that necessary/ beneficial/ better? Forgive me if a 'no brainer'?

 

[The exile]

The irony is that with HS2, EWR, Ashington, Levenmouth there’s probably as much raikway construction going on now as there has been for decades (OK, Crossrail probably overlapped most of these as well and that’s now finished.)

 

[zwk500]

The irony is that with HS2, EWR, Ashington, Levenmouth there’s probably as much raikway construction going on now as there has been for decades (OK, Crossrail probably overlapped most of these as well and that’s now finished.)

Depends where you draw the line as to what's 'construction' and whats a deep refurb. And also what importance each has. Renovating the existing lines is just as important as building new ones.

 

[The Planner]

Thank you. (Why) is that necessary/ beneficial/ better? Forgive me if a 'no brainer'?

It isn't necessarily beneficial, it will be a safety thing.

 

[BrianW]

It isn't necessarily beneficial, it will be a safety thing.

So, have safety standards increased; line speeds increased; visibility expectations increased; braking capabilities reduced?

I'm questioning the use of words such as inevitably and increasingly, esp without supporting evidence.

I'm hoping that crossing incidents have decreased, in number and severity, and would be pleased to know if stats support that.

Thanks.

 

[Starmill]

So, have safety standards increased; line speeds increased; visibility expectations increased; braking capabilities reduced?

I'm questioning the use of words such as inevitably and increasingly, esp without supporting evidence.

I'm hoping that crossing incidents have decreased, in number and severity, and would be pleased to know if stats support that.

Thanks.

I don't have a document to back this up I'm afraid, and I honestly don't know if one exists even internally to Network Rail, but in general I think that we can agree that the industry is now strongly averse to any new automatic half-barrier crossings, or even any existing unbarriered light controlled crossings, on all but the most minor of routes. In all of the examples I'm aware of the crossing sequence is slower with full barriers, and therefore the time necccesary to start the sequence is further in advance of an approaching train. It also depends on whether obstacle detectors or CCTV are in use, which one or the other will be if a crossing is being upgraded to automatic and is unstaffed. If a train is approaching a crossing at a relatively low speed, because for example it's a freight train which cannot achieve the permissible speed on that section of line, or because it's within about a mile of a station where some of the trains have called, you also have a lot of extra expense to try to minimise the crossing closure times by calculating the speed of the approaching train using yet more expensive safety critical equipment. I'm only aware of that happening at miniature stop light foot crossings, where pedestrians wouldn't respect the stop light if the signal were on for over 10 minutes, but I understand something similar can be used at vehicular crossings involving treadles.

Now of course, there are some solutions to the slower crossing cycles, such as a driver-operated manual open crossing, where the risk is very substantially lower because the train will be crossing at walking pace, and the closure time is very short. Obviously, however, that means the train actually has to stop before the crossing!

Any meaningful change to a crossing's use will trigger a new risk assessment. If the crossing risk goes up a category as a consequence, Network Rail are all but obliged to put mitigation in place, or refuse the change. If all of your options for mitigation have been used up, you need to close the crossing (for this read pay for a bridge) or, again, refuse the change. To do otherwise could put Network Rail at risk of corporate manslaughter charges should anyone's misuse of the crossing lead to loss of life or limb in the future.

 

[Parjon]

This is of course true, but the appraisal methodology is relatively effective at preventing the weakest cases from being funded

If this was the case the UK would be a top performing economy with "strong" infrastructure projects coming out of our ears.

Instead of a confidence trickster economy built on sand, with weak/no business case public projects routinely blowing their budgets by order of magnitude, positive business cases for certain things being suppressed and ones with phoney figures inserted to justify political decisions (and vice versa), and more multi millionaire directors and chief executives on public pay you can shake a stick at.

The only people who think the current approach (and results) are appropriate are those who benefit. There's nothing "strong" about condemning towns and cities to poverty in order to spend inordinate amounts on the chosen few.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Apologies if this has already been discussed I skim read the three pages of the thread.

One thing I am finding is a huge cost escalator is access and until we have a more mature relationship with access it won't improve. Granted compared to many of our European neighbours we have less diversionary routes.

TRU seem to be doing better (yet that is still expensive) but I think in general we need better access to infrastructure to reduce costs and doing more within them.

My other bug bear is lack of certainty for contractors which is well discussed in terms of electrification, the lack of certainty of future workloads causes costs to increase ridiculously due to commercial interests but mainly lack of staff and experience retention.

While the documentation can feel like a killer in my experience it doesn't have the same level of impact on costs as other things discussed, most take no time at all, the main problem is when the scope changes for the 5th time and the forms are redone for the 6th!

With risk assessments, large project teams can lead to lack of accountability which does cause issues with risk mitigation getting a bit silly. Constant churn of staff due to recent organisational changes is not helping this, while also stretching staff.

My 2p worth!

 

[zwk500]

One thing I am finding is a huge cost escalator is access and until we have a more mature relationship with access it won't improve.
Constant churn of staff due to recent organisational changes is not helping this, while also stretching staff.

I would certainly agree with these points.

I would contend that documentation does have a major role as many projects rack up huge bills before they even get to the construction approvals page because people have to spend a lot of time unpicking what's already there.

 

[Basil Jet]

IMO signalling needs to be cheaper. I've lost count of the times I've read that they want to put in a loop or a bay, but they can only afford it by waiting 25 years until the signalling is life-expired. Signalling is supposed to facilitate the railway, not ossify it.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think its likely we are going to make it easier to access infrastructure any time soon. The Risk assessment apparatus will never allow you to do that!

Ultimately I think we are reaching the point where any upgrades have to be done on completely closed infrastructure.
The blockade system is driving costs through the roof because of constantly having to get the railway back into operating state after every blockade.

As the corollary, its likely we are going to have to increase the isolation of running lines from each other, through fencing or other barriers to allow one line to be properly closed without closing the other.

But in the long run, it leads back to my thoughts that the existing infrastructure is just not workable in the modern environment.