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

[philosopher]

From reading a few blogs and watching some Youtube videos, one thing I have learnt is that high speed rail in the UK is very expensive compared to other developed countries. From example one video suggested high speed rail in the UK is almost ten times more expensive to build per kilometre than Spain. The video did suggest however high speed rail can be built relatively cheaply in Spain.

What are the reasons behind the UK’s high costs for constructing new high speed rail?

 

[CW2]

Terrain, land ownership, property density, land prices, labour market. There's a lot of difference between building a railway across the uninhabited Plain in Spain and tunnelling through the South East of England, as an example.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Land prices, compensation to residents, the need for extra tunnelling and sound insulation through sensitive areas, environmental laws and campaigners, lawyers, contractors, nimbys...
I suspect all major UK infrastructure projects are more expensive than on the continent (motorways, airports, power stations, metro system etc).
Spain and France are relatively empty countries between major centres.
Laws also tend to favour central government diktat, unlike here.
We are more urban than most, more like Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, where high speed rail has been slower/more expensive to develop for much the same reasons.
There is still not a pro-high speed rail lobby in the UK, unlike in France, Italy and Spain where it is obvious the economy has benefitted hugely from it and regions want their own high speed railway.
HS1 is very localised to Kent and London; HS2 will be different when it opens, as large parts of the country will benefit (but not all).

 

[CyrusWuff]

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.

 

[philosopher]

Land prices, compensation to residents, the need for extra tunnelling and sound insulation through sensitive areas, environmental laws and campaigners, lawyers, contractors, nimbys...
I suspect all major UK infrastructure projects are more expensive than on the continent (motorways, airports, power stations, metro system etc).
Spain and France are relatively empty countries between major centres.
Laws also tend to favour central government diktat, unlike here.
We are more urban than most, more like Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, where high speed rail has been slower/more expensive to develop for much the same reasons.
There is still not a pro-high speed rail lobby in the UK, unlike in France, Italy and Spain where it is obvious the economy has benefitted hugely from it and regions want their own high speed railway.
HS1 is very localised to Kent and London; HS2 will be different when it opens, as large parts of the country will benefit (but not all).

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.

 

[Watershed]

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.

Yes, that has been the trend in most other European countries. However, it comes at a significant cost in terms of capacity and journey time. The main justification for HS2 is the capacity it unlocks on the WCML, so it would be quite pointless to run it until (say) Watford and then join the WCML there.

Most of our continental neighbours are blessed with railways that weren't "rationalised" as heavily as ours, so it generally isn't as big of an issue there.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Most of our continental neighbours are blessed with railways that weren't "rationalised" as heavily as ours, so it generally isn't as big of an issue there.

And, generally speaking, haven't seen rail patronage rise as much as three-fold on major routes as has been seen in GB over the past 25 years or so.

 

[A0wen]

Most of our continental neighbours are blessed with railways that weren't "rationalised" as heavily as ours, so it generally isn't as big of an issue there.

Nonsense. And "rationalisation", by which you mean Beeching, would have made little difference to HS1 or HS2.

What many European countries did have to do was rebuild their rail networks in the aftermath of WW2 - which wasn't the case in Britain.

 

[Ianno87]

Another difference between the UK and other countries is how costs are accounted for. Other countries conveniently hide costs elsewhere on the balance sheet.

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.

The marginal increase in construction cost of 400 vs 350 is virtually nil. It's the the difference between a very straight alignment, and an almost-very-straight-but-still-largely-straight alignment. If the 400 requirement were dropped, there'd be very little practical difference to the alignment.

Nobody is proposing actually operating it at 400 at this stage, so increase in maintenance cost doesn't factor.

 

[JamesT]

The marginal increase in construction cost of 400 vs 350 is virtually nil. It's the the difference between a very straight alignment, and an almost-very-straight-but-still-largely-straight alignment. If the 400 requirement were dropped, there'd be very little practical difference to the alignment.

Nobody is proposing actually operating it at 400 at this stage, so increase in maintenance cost doesn't factor.

Also, China appear to be trying to run faster than 350kph, so it’s not true to say no-one is - https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1160492.shtml

 

[Ianno87]

Also, China appear to be trying to run faster than 350kph, so it’s not true to say no-one is - https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1160492.shtml

I meant no-one is proposing it (400) for HS2.

 

[JamesT]

I meant no-one is proposing it (400) for HS2.

Sorry, should have really replied to the previous poster who claimed nobody else anywhere was designing for higher than 350

 

[LOL The Irony]

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.

Although that does have the benefit of futureproofing, as everything should have.

 

[zwk500]

Although that does have the benefit of futureproofing, as everything should have.

Futureproofing for what? Birmingham is only 189km from London, there'll be very little benefit to the extra 50km/h between OOC and Birmingham Interchange, which will be nearer 150km.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Futureproofing for what?

What do you mean futureproofing for what? It allows for faster trains should the drive or reason to go faster ever comes.

Birmingham is only 189km from London, there'll be very little benefit to the extra 50km/h between OOC and Birmingham Interchange, which will be nearer 150km.

What about Manchester, Leeds and north of those cities?

 

[zwk500]

What do you mean futureproofing for what? It allows for faster trains should the drive or reason to go faster ever comes

What about Manchester, Leeds and north of those cities?

Isn't phase 2 going to be build to a lower speed profile in any case?

 

[Watershed]

And "rationalisation", by which you mean Beeching, would have made little difference to HS1 or HS2.

Actually, I didn't mean Beeching. His report guaranteed the future of heavily trafficked lines such as the WCML.

What many European countries did have to do was rebuild their rail networks in the aftermath of WW2 - which wasn't the case in Britain.

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.

 

[87 027]

HS2 also included greater long term obligations on suppliers so they priced the additional risk into their contracts

 

[HSTEd]

Our schemes all end up enormously complex with huge numbers of moving parts, attempts to "save money" that actually cost money, endless revised schedules and redesigns and god knows what else.

To the point that HS2 now costs a comparable amount per route kilometer to the Ceneri Base Tunnel.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Isn't phase 2 going to be build to a lower speed profile in any case?

So we should build the whole line to a worse spec then?

 

[zwk500]

So we should build the whole line to a worse spec then?

If the cost increase from 350 to 400 is significant, yes. We should build the line to the highest spec feasible. But that means the eventual spec has to be useful, as well as affordable.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Our schemes all end up enormously complex with huge numbers of moving parts, attempts to "save money" that actually cost money, endless revised schedules and redesigns and god knows what else.

To the point that HS2 now costs a comparable amount per route kilometer to the Ceneri Base Tunnel.

This is a grounded take. Quite a lot of the time, short term cost cutting measures actually wind up costing more in the long term. Case in point the Pacers.

If the cost increase from 350 to 400 is significant, yes. We should build the line to the highest spec feasible. But that means the eventual spec has to be useful, as well as affordable.

That may be, but to me, if you can do it, do it.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

Isn't phase 2 going to be build to a lower speed profile in any case?

In parts certainly, such as where it has to weave a bit to get between settlements in the Warrington area. The alignment via Meadowhall and Barnsley was also slower before it was abandoned.

Effectively it's being built for 400km/h where that doesn't increase construction cost or cause any other difficulties. The extra maintenance cost wouldn't be incurred unless it was actually used at that speed - so at least the option of doing that remains open in the long term. London-Scotland trains in particular might benefit from bringing the journey closer to the threshold of around 3hr where most air passengers use rail instead, and it might be cheaper to run faster in the south than to do so further north.

 

[mmh]

What do you mean futureproofing for what? It allows for faster trains should the drive or reason to go faster ever comes.

What about Manchester, Leeds and north of those cities?

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.

 

[zwk500]

Quite a lot of the time, short term cost cutting measures actually wind up costing more in the long term.

This is not exactly a new realisation. A big problem with project management is that those who manage the budget are not judged on how much anything that comes later costs, so it can be of benefit to them to cut costs on the active project regardless of the impact later down the line. Oxford-Bletchley electrification is an obvious one, but also the GWML electrification.

That may be, but to me, if you can do it, do it.

That's all well and good but with what money are you proposing to do this?

In parts certainly, such as where it has to weave a bit to get between settlements in the Warrington area. The alignment via Meadowhall and Barnsley was also slower before it was abandoned.

Effectively it's being built for 400km/h where that doesn't increase construction cost or cause any other difficulties. The extra maintenance cost wouldn't be incurred unless it was actually used at that speed - so at least the option of doing that remains open in the long term. London-Scotland trains in particular might benefit from bringing the journey closer to the threshold of around 3hr where most air passengers use rail instead, and it might be cheaper to run faster in the south than to do so further north.

London-Scotland would benefit, although journey times are dependant on other traffic as well as the physical capability of the infrastructure.

 

[SuperNova]

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.

Given Phase 2a received royal assent, that's a very big call...

 

[gallafent]

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.

As a side-note, it's interesting and a bit inexplicable to me that in China there is a lot of 350km/h infrastructure (and nothing designed for 400km/h according to wikipedia at least), but loads of different train classes all of which can do 400km/h. Perhaps their infrastructure is in fact designed for 400km/h with minor upgrades of some kind (in other words, the profiles and curvature is OK), it would be interesting to know more about this strategy (which looks like buying trains that are needlessly overspecified, unless there's something wikipedia doesn't know about …).

 

[mmh]

Given Phase 2a received royal assent, that's a very big call...

I'm more than willing to eat my hat in twenty years time!

 

[DerekC]

The marginal increase in construction cost of 400 vs 350 is virtually nil. It's the the difference between a very straight alignment, and an almost-very-straight-but-still-largely-straight alignment. If the 400 requirement were dropped, there'd be very little practical difference to the alignment.

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.

 

[snowball]

Given Phase 2a received royal assent, that's a very big call...

And expresions of interest are being sought (as of yesterday) for contractors to conduct ground surveys for phase 2b west.