Why do stations cost so much to build?

ABB125 · 9 Dec 2017

As the title suggests, why do stations cost so much to build? Often, they are seemingly just two big brick blocks covered in tarmac with a gap in between. Admittedly, a lift-enabled overbridge will not be cheap, but I suspect they cost more than would be the case of, say, a footbridge over a major road. Even single-platform stations seem to cost a fortune (at least to me) for something I wouldn't be willing to pay a few hundred thousand pounds for, yet they cost millions.
Why is this? Is it a case of 'everything Network Rail does costs about 400x the amount anyone else would pay?'

As a side note, I am curious about optimism bias: this seems to add great cost to a project, but you never read about a project that has only cost what was predicted, not including the optimism bias. Does this mean that the optimism bias is actually spent, even though I would have though that if the contractor says it will cost X amount, that is how much it should cost, not X + 60% or whatever?

Thank you for any replies.

RailUK Forums

Y Ddraig Coch · 9 Dec 2017

ABB125 said:
Why is this? Is it a case of 'everything Network Rail does costs about 400x the amount anyone else would pay?'

Pretty much!!

jopsuk · 9 Dec 2017

1. There's some truth that building on the railways seems to be over-expensive
2. They're building to last. Ideally we'd like new stations to last as long as Victorian stations
3. have you looked at how much building a similar bridge over a road costs or are you just making wild assumptions

Railsigns · 9 Dec 2017

4. Privatisation

najaB · 9 Dec 2017

Railsigns said:
4. Privatisation

Did BR build stations, or did they get contractors in? If the latter then privatisation has little to do (directly) with it.

Railsigns · 9 Dec 2017

najaB said:
Did BR build stations, or did they get contractors in? If the latter then privatisation has little to do (directly) with it.

Fragmentation in the rail industry, a direct result of privatisation, has a lot to do with it, because Network Rail is not the only stakeholder when a new station is built. Each of the TOCs affected will have to be consulted. I dread to think how many meetings take place to satisfy all of the TOCs' requirements, not to mention countless amendments to the designs.

InOban · 9 Dec 2017

The inefficiencies caused by the need to work in short bursts during possessions. And the need to pay for the delays and diversions these possessions require.
I remember reading that to install a basic bus shelter on a railway platform costs 10x as much as to install an identical shelter on a public road.

Bald Rick · 9 Dec 2017

Sigh.

Anyone can build a station themselves, if they have the money. That Network Rail tends to build almost all of them tells you that getting someone else in is more expensive.

Flying Phil · 9 Dec 2017

I am watching the rebuilding of Market Harborough Station. I believe the budget is £46M. There are two platforms.....However the twin track MML is also being realigned to ease the severe reverse curve so the old car park is being used for the new, straighter tracks hence the need for new platforms. A new car park is being made where the old goods yard and shed was. This has been demolished and the whole area cleared, levelled and new drainage installed. A team of approx 20 workers, with plant, have been working hard for four months so far and that is just on the first stage and there have been no overnight possessions yet, no new track bed prepared, no track laid, no old platforms removed, no new platforms built.....I begin to see why it is so expensive.

From the OP
"As a side note, I am curious about optimism bias: this seems to add great cost to a project, but you never read about a project that has only cost what was predicted, not including the optimism bias. Does this mean that the optimism bias is actually spent, even though I would have though that if the contractor says it will cost X amount, that is how much it should cost, not X + 60% or whatever?"

I think, in fact, many projects are completed "on time and on budget"....but that is not newsworthy it seems.

a_c_skinner · 9 Dec 2017

I've a recollection of Whitehaven North costing £300k. I know this wasn't a well made, finished, Rolls Royce station, but goodness.

quantinghome · 9 Dec 2017

I read somewhere that West Yorkshire stations opened in the 80s cost about £1/2m each. These were wooden frame platforms and little else. That would be about £2m in today's money. Recent stations have a much higher materials specification and the scope is typically bigger including lifts, car parks etc. But certainly having many many stakeholder organisations working on it doesn't make for efficiency.

ABB125 · 9 Dec 2017

jopsuk said:
3. have you looked at how much building a similar bridge over a road costs or are you just making wild assumptions

Unfortunately, it was a wild assumption.

edwin_m · 9 Dec 2017

ABB125 said:
As a side note, I am curious about optimism bias: this seems to add great cost to a project, but you never read about a project that has only cost what was predicted, not including the optimism bias. Does this mean that the optimism bias is actually spent, even though I would have though that if the contractor says it will cost X amount, that is how much it should cost, not X + 60% or whatever?

Optimism bias is applied during the early stages of developing a potential project, because the Treasury considers that estimates made at this stage are always too low (this was based on comparisons of outturn project costs against earlier estimates). 60%+ is generally applied at the feasibility stage when deciding whether the project has the potential to be worthwhile, but the figure reduces as the design becomes more complete. By the time construction contracts are placed, optimism bias is no longer applicable although there will still be contingency allowances allocated to project risks.

Bwlch y Groes · 9 Dec 2017

I get the impression the provisions for things like accessibility and parking add a lot on to the designs of modern stations. If you compare somewhere like Kirkstall Forge with the WY Metro stations from the 80s, it's just a world of difference - Cononley cost £34,000 (according to Wikipedia), Kirkstall cost £16m. But you can tell when you look at the designs of the sites that one would have to have cost a lot more. If you tried sticking up two basic platforms and a bus shelter on each, you'd have various campaign groups on your doorstep wanting your head - and I can entirely understand a lot of that, especially from an accessibility perspective. It has killed off a lot of potential openings, though

I suspect the peak for openings has long passed, even taking into account an eventual potential reversal of cutbacks to infrastructure spending. I know WYCA aren't planning on many more and see the West Yorks network as virtually full to capacity as far as stations go now

Lampshade · 9 Dec 2017

Bald Rick said:
Sigh.

Anyone can build a station themselves, if they have the money. That Network Rail tends to build almost all of them tells you that getting someone else in is more expensive.

Warwick Parkway.

eastdyke · 9 Dec 2017

In one word 'standards', in two 'strict standards'.
The least expensive that I can recall this century would be Beauly, just north of Inverness, which cost around £250,000 for a short single platform and basic access and shelter. The annual usage figure exceeds 50,000 for mostly Inverness commuting.
The fact that most new stations are built by NR may not be totally cost related, in that Contractors other than the usual suspects may be very very nervous about working with Network Rail.

najaB · 9 Dec 2017

Lampshade said:
Warwick Parkway.

Hence 'almost all'.

Spartacus · 9 Dec 2017

quantinghome said:
I read somewhere that West Yorkshire stations opened in the 80s cost about £1/2m each. These were wooden frame platforms and little else. That would be about £2m in today's money. Recent stations have a much higher materials specification and the scope is typically bigger including lifts, car parks etc. But certainly having many many stakeholder organisations working on it doesn't make for efficiency.

Those stations will I expect have cost many times the original build costs in maintenance and repairs, with some being like Trigger's Broom, so much being replaced over the fairly short length of time they've existed that they're not really the same stations anymore

Hellzapoppin · 9 Dec 2017

You mean Theseus's paradox. Been debated for the past 1000 years. The philosophy of identity apparently, as described by swmbo.

PHILIPE · 9 Dec 2017

Because expensive consultants and architects are, in some cases. brought in to input into the design.

6Gman · 9 Dec 2017

PHILIPE said:
Because expensive consultants and architects are, in some cases. brought in to input into the design.

Well, if you don't use an architect who else would you use?

A butcher?

Mugby · 9 Dec 2017

PHILIPE said:
Because expensive consultants and architects are, in some cases. brought in to input into the design.

Exactly!

BR had a very comprehensive Works Section which had bricklayers, joiners, plumbers etc. drawing office staff too. Many stations were rebuilt in BR days, Burton-on-Trent is a good example of an extensive old Victorian station which was completely demolished and replaced with a smallish box like building with basic facilities, waiting room, toilets and supervisors office. This type of job would have been well within BR's capabilities with costs kept reasonably under control.

Today, Network Rail appears to outsource just about everything, I imagine even routine property maintainence is on a permanently rolling contract. It introduces an extra level of bureaucracy to the work, employing consultants, inviting tenders, considering them etc. and the final cost will be labour, materials, fees and contractor's profit - and the latter will be a tidy sum, no wonder NR's debt is out of control!

It could be said that privatisation was designed (and intended) for people to make money from it but I watched a documentary on television recently which suggested there's an increasing belief that outsourcing in many industries is not best practice nor value for money.
Thank goodness people are beginning to realise this!

Spartacus · 10 Dec 2017

Hellzapoppin said:
You mean Theseus's paradox. Been debated for the past 1000 years. The philosophy of identity apparently, as described by swmbo.

Yep, also one of the many issues some people have with Flying Scotsman, an issue shared with most steam locos (Ideas like 60009 Union Of South Africa may be, pound for pound, more extinct W1 10000 than the original 4488 due to using 10000's tender)

satisnek · 10 Dec 2017

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned DDA compliance. Willington is a good example of an 'el cheapo' station built in the mid-1990s with steps up to the platforms only. If it were to be built today it would have ramp access, requiring additional land, or, more likely, lifts because the land needed for ramps isn't available.

Tio Terry · 10 Dec 2017

Bald Rick said:
Sigh.

Anyone can build a station themselves, if they have the money. That Network Rail tends to build almost all of them tells you that getting someone else in is more expensive.

One of the reasons why most new stations are built by NR is because infrastructure changes have to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Common Safety Method for Risk Assessment. A piece of European legislation which is mandated by the DfT and ORR and enshrined in the UK's ROGS Regulations. This requires a "Proposer of Change" be appointed and not many company's outside of NR have people who meet the requirements for this and/or understand CSM-RA in the first place.

306024 · 10 Dec 2017

Railsigns said:
Fragmentation in the rail industry, a direct result of privatisation, has a lot to do with it, because Network Rail is not the only stakeholder when a new station is built. Each of the TOCs affected will have to be consulted. I dread to think how many meetings take place to satisfy all of the TOCs' requirements, not to mention countless amendments to the designs.

Fragmentation doesn’t help obviously, but many of such meetings would have taken place under BR, just that they would be with internal BR departments.

Building a station goes way beyond the cost of the structure. In addition to the extras already mentioned add possible changes to track geometry, signal sighting and possible redesign. Cambridge North is a fairly basic track layout, simply to keep the costs down.

ABB125 · 10 Dec 2017

Mugby said:
Exactly!

BR had a very comprehensive Works Section which had bricklayers, joiners, plumbers etc. drawing office staff too. Many stations were rebuilt in BR days, Burton-on-Trent is a good example of an extensive old Victorian station which was completely demolished and replaced with a smallish box like building with basic facilities, waiting room, toilets and supervisors office. This type of job would have been well within BR's capabilities with costs kept reasonably under control.

Today, Network Rail appears to outsource just about everything, I imagine even routine property maintainence is on a permanently rolling contract. It introduces an extra level of bureaucracy to the work, employing consultants, inviting tenders, considering them etc. and the final cost will be labour, materials, fees and contractor's profit - and the latter will be a tidy sum, no wonder NR's debt is out of control!

It could be said that privatisation was designed (and intended) for people to make money from it but I watched a documentary on television recently which suggested there's an increasing belief that outsourcing in many industries is not best practice nor value for money.
Thank goodness people are beginning to realise this!

This is quite interesting; I wonder what the railway would be like now if this department had been kept at privatisation?

Gareth Marston · 10 Dec 2017

Mugby said:
Exactly!

BR had a very comprehensive Works Section which had bricklayers, joiners, plumbers etc. drawing office staff too. Many stations were rebuilt in BR days, Burton-on-Trent is a good example of an extensive old Victorian station which was completely demolished and replaced with a smallish box like building with basic facilities, waiting room, toilets and supervisors office. This type of job would have been well within BR's capabilities with costs kept reasonably under control.

Today, Network Rail appears to outsource just about everything, I imagine even routine property maintainence is on a permanently rolling contract. It introduces an extra level of bureaucracy to the work, employing consultants, inviting tenders, considering them etc. and the final cost will be labour, materials, fees and contractor's profit - and the latter will be a tidy sum, no wonder NR's debt is out of control!

It could be said that privatisation was designed (and intended) for people to make money from it but I watched a documentary on television recently which suggested there's an increasing belief that outsourcing in many industries is not best practice nor value for money.
Thank goodness people are beginning to realise this!

I call it dumbsourcing - Network Rail does jack all in house despite the trauma of its creation and replacing Railtrack its still essentially a clearing house to hand contracts to private firms.

Mag_seven · 10 Dec 2017

Gareth Marston said:
I call it dumbsourcing - Network Rail does jack all in house despite the trauma of its creation and replacing Railtrack its still essentially a clearing house to hand contracts to private firms.

NR did bring maintenance in house though after the disaster of the Railtrack years.

Bald Rick · 10 Dec 2017

Gareth Marston said:
I call it dumbsourcing - Network Rail does jack all in house despite the trauma of its creation and replacing Railtrack its still essentially a clearing house to hand contracts to private firms.

I strongly recommend that you don't espouse that view if you happen to come across any high output track renewals boys and girls, or the in house design groups, or anyone in maintenance.

Why do stations cost so much to build?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member