Why are things so expensive?

[ikcdab]

New £30m UK train station to open after being closed for 60 years

The mayor said it was "astonishing" that despite having an active railway line no passenger trains have stopped at the location since 1965.

www.express.co.uk

So this is a single platform station with access road and car park for 40 cars. No footbridge, minimal infrastructure.
Yet the cost is £30 million and it going to take 3 years....
Really? Surely a platform can't cost more than a million (a whole large house can be built for £250k), a bit of a carpark, maybe a million and an access road...I think even £5 million would be generous in total. And surely no more than a year at most...
So where does the other £25 million go? I think we all know... It goes to design consultants, h&s consultants and all those looking to pad out 3 years work.
Comments?

Ps .. Having looked at the map, it might be that this also requires track upgrade from freight to passenger, so there might be signalling etc. So maybe it's not as bad as I thought. Still a lot of money though.

 

[Topological]

I don't think the £250,000 house will be built within striking distance of an active railway (for example).

The platform is going to be a long piece of building very close to an active railway. Given that you presumably accept the closure of said active railway at times then the costs go up very quickly.

 

[Dr Hoo]

If it’s Aldridge (on a double track line) I presume that means a crossover and signalling for a turnback facility. (?)

 

[birchesgreen]

I like how the Express article can't spell Aldridge correctly.

 

[The Planner]

If it’s Aldridge (on a double track line) I presume that means a crossover and signalling for a turnback facility. (?)

Yep.

 

[eldomtom2]

The Transit Costs Project is probably worth a look - this was a look by a group of primarily American academics into why some countries' transit projects cost much more than they do in other countries. Personally I would take it with a pinch of salt (one of its authors is a crayonista per excellence), but it's worth a read. They blamed political meddling, lacking agency expertise resulting in a reliance on consultants, fixed-price contracts, a focus on minimising cost overruns rather than minimising the absolute cost, lack of coordination between different agencies, outdated union work rules, bespoke designs rather than standardisation, unwillingness to accept temporary disruption to get something built more quickly, a lack of public transparency, unwillingness to learn from foreign countries, and making the private sector own the risk - I don't have the expertise to say which of these (if any) apply to the UK.

 

[The exile]

I don't think the £250,000 house will be built within striking distance of an active railway (for example).

I would also imagine than £250k for a house requires the various services (electricity, drainage etc) already basically there - which here they probably are not. Drainage for an access road and car park won’t come cheap for a start.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Worth saying the recent Portway Park and Ride station in Bristol cost almost £6m and that was as simple as you can get really - one platform on an existing single track line without any track or signalling upgrades (as far as I am aware).

I'm comparison, the still in build Ashley Down station in Bristol which will be two platforms with a bridge and lifts etc and which required fairly significant trackwork is budgeted to cost, alongside the yet to be built Filton North and Henbury stations and the associates trackwork for those (the track currently exists but as freight only so not sure how much has to be done there) is budgeted for about £70m in total.

So I'd agree £30m for one single platform station does seem on the high side!

 

[Taunton]

I don't think the £250,000 house will be built within striking distance of an active railway (for example).

The platform is going to be a long piece of building very close to an active railway. Given that you presumably accept the closure of said active railway at times then the costs go up very quickly.

I see we are concealing that this is not a mainstream active line with frequent passenger services, but the freight-only Sutton Park line, whose few services seem principally to run that way to avoid central Birmingham. Looking at the handful of services that have actually gone that way in recent days, it seems mainly used by engineers department trains and light engines to and fro. Yes, and a couple of freights as well, doubtless for operating convenience.

 

[dangie]

Is £30 million the current estimate? If so that’ll double!
…. but why 3 years…??

 

[The Planner]

I see we are concealing that this is not a mainstream active line with frequent passenger services, but the freight-only Sutton Park line, whose few services seem principally to run that way to avoid central Birmingham. Looking at the handful of services that have actually gone that way in recent days, it seems mainly used by engineers department trains and light engines to and fro. Yes, and a couple of freights as well, doubtless for operating convenience.

Unless you are gauge clearing and providing capacity to go anywhere else through Birmingham, its not operational convenience, it has to.

 

[Parham Wood]

Everything has gone up because of energy costs for one thing. However I doubt any contract will have a clause requiring a reduction in costs if energy costs come down. Personally I think some material supplies companies have taken advantage to raise prices more than their cost increases as it is easy to mask this under the banner of energy cost rises.

 

[Starmill]

So where does the other £25 million go? I think we all know... It goes to design consultants, h&s consultants and all those looking to pad out 3 years work.

If you don't want a consultant to do the design, don't hire one. That will save paying their fees.

Then when ORR refuse to allow your station to enter service because it doesn't comply with the law what are you going to do? A station nobody can use is far worse value for money than one that costs £30 million.

Exactly the same goes for signalling, track, and highways. If it can't be shown to comply with the standards it's unlawful to use it.

 

[eldomtom2]

If you don't want a consultant to do the design, don't hire one. That will save paying their fees.

Then when ORR refuse to allow your station to enter service because it doesn't comply with the law what are you going to do? A station nobody can use is far worse value for money than one that costs £30 million.

Exactly the same goes for signalling, track, and highways. If it can't be shown to comply with the standards it's unlawful to use it.

You're making a false dichotomy between "paying for consultants" and "end product does not comply with standards" here...

 

[Nottingham59]

The Transit Costs Project is probably worth a look - this was a look by a group of primarily American academics into why some countries' transit projects cost much more than they do in other countries. Personally I would take it with a pinch of salt (one of its authors is a crayonista per excellence), but it's worth a read. They blamed political meddling, lacking agency expertise resulting in a reliance on consultants, fixed-price contracts, a focus on minimising cost overruns rather than minimising the absolute cost, lack of coordination between different agencies, outdated union work rules, bespoke designs rather than standardisation, unwillingness to accept temporary disruption to get something built more quickly, a lack of public transparency, unwillingness to learn from foreign countries, and making the private sector own the risk - I don't have the expertise to say which of these (if any) apply to the UK.

At first glance, I would say all of them.

 

[ikcdab]

If you don't want a consultant to do the design, don't hire one. That will save paying their fees.

Then when ORR refuse to allow your station to enter service because it doesn't comply with the law what are you going to do? A station nobody can use is far worse value for money than one that costs £30 million.

Exactly the same goes for signalling, track, and highways. If it can't be shown to comply with the standards it's unlawful to use it.

I would have thought that a single platform would pretty much an "off the shelf" design. Surely, they do not start from scratch every single time?
We all know what happens - fixed price contractors are engaged and they charge railway proces - ie hourly rates of hundreds an hour (I saw exactly the same thing when i worked for government - the prices seemed to double...)

 

[Starmill]

I would have thought that a single platform would pretty much an "off the shelf" design. Surely, they do not start from scratch every single time?
We all know what happens - fixed price contractors are engaged and they charge railway proces - ie hourly rates of hundreds an hour (I saw exactly the same thing when i worked for government - the prices seemed to double...)

This isn't true though is it? Certainly elements can be standardised, and this increasingly is the case now with modular buildings, although some of the highly-standardised new stations look absolutely horrendous and aren't at all enjoyable things to use or look at, such as Thanet Parkway.

As for contractors yes of course they're used and yes of course they're in it to make a profit. Would you not be? Do you work for free? Can you suggest a not-for-profit provider?

You're making a false dichotomy between "paying for consultants" and "end product does not comply with standards" here...

Clearly not. If you don't have someone on your payroll qualified to do that work to the appropriate level of assurance, the end product isn't going to be compliant. It's pretty much a certain outcome. That's literally what you're paying the consultant engineers for.

Now sure you could say "But they should have that capability in house" - and then no doubt you'd be the first to complain about employing huge numbers of staff who are poorly-utilised...

 

[HSTEd]

A highly fragmented railway with a corporate system that subcontracts to the degree that cost control becomes entirely impractical and any project focus is lost.

Now sure you could say "But they should have that capability in house" - and then no doubt you'd be the first to complain about employing huge numbers of staff who are poorly-utilised...

Well unless the consultants regualrly starve to death, they are still poorly utilised, its just that the payments are concealed in inflated at-point-of-use fees rather than being transparent.

And, beyond that, as they work for the contractor their incentive structure in no way aligns with the public interest.

 

[ikcdab]

As for contractors yes of course they're used and yes of course they're in it to make a profit. Would you not be? Do you work for free? Can you suggest a not-for-profit provider?

Umm, no-one is suggesting they work for nothing. What I am suggesting is that they charge over-blown rates. I saw it in my government job when furniture prices (just one example) were twice what they were to non-government organisations. And in the NHS when they pay £5 for a box of pills that can be bought for 45p in Asda - I've seen the invoices!

 

[SynthD]

The slabs you stand on, the doors and barriers you pass through are standard. But the building design depends on local ground levels and heights of other buildings, important trees.

 

[Busaholic]

At first glance, I would say all of them.

Absolutely.

 

[Starmill]

Well unless the consultants regualrly starve to death, they are still poorly utilised, its just that the payments are concealed in inflated at-point-of-use fees rather than being transparent.

Obviously not. The consultant can for work for other clients.

Umm, no-one is suggesting they work for nothing. What I am suggesting is that they charge over-blown rates. I saw it in my government job when furniture prices (just one example) were twice what they were to non-government organisations. And in the NHS when they pay £5 for a box of pills that can be bought for 45p in Asda - I've seen the invoices!

They're charging a market rate for a very scarce set of skills. Nothing like selling a box of paracetamol for £5.

A highly fragmented railway with a corporate system that subcontracts to the degree that cost control becomes entirely impractical and any project focus is lost.

Again this is wrong. Network Rail do keep things in house where that's better value for money. They also do their own consulting - are you suggesting that it's not appropriate for them to charge market rates when the shoe is on the other foot?

 

[HSTEd]

Obviously not. The consultant can for work for other clients.

For a wide range of railway industry relevant engineering skills including design of specialist parts of railway stations, the railway is de-facto a monopsony purchaser.

Again this is wrong. Network Rail do keep things in house where that's better value for money. They also do their own consulting - are you suggesting that it's not appropriate for them to charge market rates when the shoe is on the other foot?

No?
We should just be aware that consultants are not acting in the interests of the public or of the railway, they serve only one master - the shareholders of the consultancy.
In the past there have been political drivers to use consultants to conceal ongoing industry costs as a succession of one off capital spends.

 

[Mark J]

New £30m UK train station to open after being closed for 60 years

The mayor said it was "astonishing" that despite having an active railway line no passenger trains have stopped at the location since 1965.

www.express.co.uk

So this is a single platform station with access road and car park for 40 cars. No footbridge, minimal infrastructure.
Yet the cost is £30 million and it going to take 3 years....
Really? Surely a platform can't cost more than a million (a whole large house can be built for £250k), a bit of a carpark, maybe a million and an access road...I think even £5 million would be generous in total. And surely no more than a year at most...
So where does the other £25 million go? I think we all know... It goes to design consultants, h&s consultants and all those looking to pad out 3 years work.
Comments?

Ps .. Having looked at the map, it might be that this also requires track upgrade from freight to passenger, so there might be signalling etc. So maybe it's not as bad as I thought. Still a lot of money though.

From what I recall, Chiltern opted for third party contractors, rather than Network Rail, when Stations were built for the 'Evergreen Projects'.

They were unimpressed by the costs quoted by Network Rail and found cheaper elsewhere.

 

[birchesgreen]

Its expensive because everything is expensive in this country. Some folk will be getting plenty of cash for this, some of them might even deserve it.

 

[The exile]

Wasn’t the classic example of this the use of the existing cattle creep at Warwick Parkway? Might not tick all the “best practice” boxes but seems to work and probably saved millions.

 

[Rescars]

If time travel were possible, it might be instructive to invite a tender from Col Stephens!

 

[Starmill]

For a wide range of railway industry relevant engineering skills including design of specialist parts of railway stations, the railway is de-facto a monopsony purchaser.

That's not the case though is it. Most of the people who have the skills to assure compliant design of a turnout or station platform etc. also have wide-ranging skills in slightly different applications. Civil and structural engineers can apply their skills to roads an footbridges as easily as railways. There's also work for light railways, London Underground, NIR, IE, and most continental railways, which British staff often work on. Clearly Network Rail doesn't have anything like a monopsony. In areas where it does, they've taken more of those staff in house.

No?
We should just be aware that consultants are not acting in the interests of the public or of the railway, they serve only one master - the shareholders of the consultancy.
In the past there have been political drivers to use consultants to conceal ongoing industry costs as a succession of one off capital spends.

Plainly. But Network Rail aren't TOCs, they don't just fritter money away on things because that's how they've always done it. They make use of consultants where it's cheaper to do so than use in-house specialists. Why do you have a such a problem with that?

 

[Thirteen]

£30m is cheap for a railway station, Brent Cross West cost £419m.

 

[Starmill]

£30m is cheap for a railway station, Brent Cross West cost £419m.

There was a lot there that wasn't necessary for the station however. It was included because it was part of the development and local authority's requirements. It achieved lots of non-transport objectives like reducing the severance between areas either side of the railway for example.