Costing a (small) Metro route

[Ivo]

I am trying to work out exactly how expensive it would be to build a Metro system with the following statistics. If anyone on here is able to provide even a small amount of data or assistance I would be very grateful. Note that the system would be designed for tram use to simplify construction, including things like signalling, platforms and more.

Tunnels: Approx. 6m wide and 3.5m tall with a rectangular shape and concrete walls with a length of roughly 7½ miles. An additional mile would have to be 9m wide to allow either a third track or a platform between the other two. Space to be provided for walkway. Built using cut-and-cover method.

Tracks: Mostly two tracks at metre guage with a small central rail for power; occasional third track in-between the other two. As well as the 8½ miles double track in tunnels, an additional three miles of double track would be required in open air. A small depot facility capable of holding 16 units would be required, totalling roughly 1.2km of track allowing for junctions etc. One short 500m stretch, 420m of which would be single track, would not have the central rail as it would be on-street and would depend on battery power.

Units: 16 units of similar design to Nottingham trams, but of up to 50m length; width restricted to roughly two metres only. To be powered by small central conductor rail, although battery capability would be required to service easternmost station; battery should be recharged using regenerative braking. At least 20m should be fully accessible with two wheelchair spaces per unit. Two 25m units semi-permanently coupled to be accepted if cheaper; smaller units may be useful in certain circumstances.

Stations: 24 island platforms of 60m length including ramps with platforms about 40cm high, 19 of which are underground. One lift and one spiral stairwell at each underground station, each climbing about five metres. TVMs capable of accepting cards and cash to be provided at all stations, with most having two (two stations would have only one and four would have three). All underground stations to be staffed by at least two persons at all times, with some having up to five; three open-air stations would also have two staff members at all times. Very basic otherwise.

Signalling: Tram signalling only, with the same system employed for points.

Staffing: Estimated to be 180 employees; assume £20K p/a average (i.e. £3.6M p/a total).

I think that's everything, but I'm not sure. Obviously there may be other issues such as compensation and the like, but I'm not asking for figures for this kind of thing at this stage. Everything is to be as basic as possible, subject to Legal requirements, to keep the cost down.

 

[anthony263]

Where will this be based?.

Certainly I think Bristol would be a good place to have such a system (Of course thats if the local authorities dont start arguing again)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Rectangular tunnels? So it's a cut and cover construction then?

Seriously, the type of tunnel will affect the costs quite a bit, and if it's bored out then you'll really want a circular cross section won't you?

 

[Ivo]

Where will this be based?.

Certainly I think Bristol would be a good place to have such a system (Of course thats if the local authorities dont start arguing again)

It's based on Southend, because the route would be almost straight (well, as straight as the A13 allows anyway). I'm thinking that the simple nature of that route could be adapted as necessary for more complex projects.

I would have chosen Bristol if not for (a) the hills and (b) the LA arguments...

Rectangular tunnels? So it's a cut and cover construction then?

Seriously, the type of tunnel will affect the costs quite a bit, and if it's bored out then you'll really want a circular cross section won't you?

It would be cut-and-cover, and done bit-by-bit to minimise disruption on the road above. The intention would be to always keep at least one lane open.

 

[telstarbox]

There's a book called Spon Construction (orange cover) which will have estimated costs for all the civil engineering items. Should be in your uni library or larger local library branches. See link below

 

[Ivo]

One thing I forgot to mention was that one of the underground stations can be brought into the open air (but in a cutting) if required. Doing so would probably mean it would be unstaffed as it is expected to be the second quietest station on the route. However, this would require the installation of traffic lights on a nearby T-junction, and would also require ramp access and a bridge above one of the tracks.

There's a book called Spon Construction (orange cover) which will have estimated costs for all the civil engineering items. Should be in your uni library or larger local library branches.

Something tells me this won't apply to Bath Spa

 

[bluenoxid]

I understand that Bath Uni has a Civil Dept so it should have a copy.

 

[telstarbox]

Even better: the 2009 Spon's Civil and Highways is available online (large PDF) here:

http://www.hants.gov.uk/pbr/qsfiles/Spons/SponCH2009eBook.pdf

Part 4 is probably the most useful; in particular, page 292 onwards has railway track items. It can be a bit overwhelming at first so the worked example on page 24 may be a good introduction
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As a starting point: according to Wikipedia (no source given), the NET Phase 1 cost £229m (2013 equivalent) for 8.7 miles of track, 23 stations and 15 vehicles. These are similar figures to your proposal although I understand that most or all of the NET is at the surface which would be cheaper than tunnelling.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

I notice that you specify metre gauge.

Wouldn't 3' (914mm) be better, in order to potentially allow through running onto the pier?

 

[bluenoxid]

Don't have a Spiral Stairwell.

 

[Ivo]

I notice that you specify metre gauge.

Wouldn't 3' (914mm) be better, in order to potentially allow through running onto the pier?

It's a fair point for sure. I said metre gauge because it comfortably allows for narrow units, but I hadn't thought of the Pier when planning it. Subject to the costs of connecting the route to the Pier 3' is certainly an option - it is only 8.56cm difference after all!

I doubt the battery option would work on the Pier though, unless a charging station is provided that could cope with up to 5tph (assuming that during peak tourism periods one service runs every six minutes with alternate services running up the Pier).

Don't have a Spiral Stairwell.

This is probably sensible advice to be fair.

I think a square-shaped spiral-esque stairwell would be better, with perhaps two flights of 12 stairs next to each other. (This is a very poor explanation so for those of you who know it think of Tower Hill LUL station.)

 

[Fred26]

What's your route/where will the stations go?

 

[Ivo]

What's your route/where will the stations go?

The route planned is as shown here. I've linked to it in a former thread to save a little Server space (). Obviously the map is imperfect as it doesn't allow for the changes at Sadler's Farm, which may damage the Park & Ride idea there. Provision would also be made for an extension along or under Broadmayne in Basildon.

There would typically be one service at intervals of either 6 minutes or 7½ minutes, with the capability of running at intervals as frequent as every three minutes which would be expected to be required between Victoria and Pier Hill on Carnival days. D841 Roebuck's idea of connecting to the Pier would certainly be considered as well, with up to five trains per hour - but usually only two - running there instead of to the Kursaal (the battery-powered bit).

Pitsea Interchange, Bowers Gifford, Sadler's Farm and Kursaal would be open air; in addition to these, Woodfield Road could also be open air and Pier Hill would have a rather novel entrance route which follows the line into the tunnel because it would be literally a few seconds' walk from the portal.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ballpark your talking around £3bn.

 

[starrymarkb]

How about something like a VAL? Of course it would depend on if you wanted UK content (or indeed steel on steel)

 

[Ivo]

How about something like a VAL? Of course it would depend on if you wanted UK content (or indeed steel on steel)

I've thought about that before. The problem is that if you have a squillion tourists coming, then having the VAL system in mid-air is visually intrusive, rendering it less-than-idea. On the other hand, I'm not convinced people would feel safe having an automatic train underground; if you have a staff presence on the train, as with the DLR, then it should be OK, but this is coming from someone with plentiful LUL/DLR experience and not an occasional user...

Ballpark your talking around £3bn.

That seems too steep to me. Even the Jubilee extension cost only about £1bn, and that was about as extravagant as it gets.

Of course, if this was correct, then pipe dream becomes pipe nightmare.

 

[W-on-Sea]

You could drop the station at Milton - it's terribly close to the one at Hamlet Court, and not that far from those in the centre of Southend, as well.

 

[starrymarkb]

I've thought about that before. The problem is that if you have a squillion tourists coming, then having the VAL system in mid-air is visually intrusive, rendering it less-than-idea. On the other hand, I'm not convinced people would feel safe having an automatic train underground; if you have a staff presence on the train, as with the DLR, then it should be OK, but this is coming from someone with plentiful LUL/DLR experience and not an occasional user...

It seemed fine Underground in Lille - there were roving staff/transport police in the evenings. Stations were also unstaffed but with trains at intervals of 2-3 mins even later in the evening it seemed ok. Most tunnels were twin track (only bit I noticed that wasn't was around Gare Flandres where Line 1 splits to provide cross platform interchange with Line 2) with evacuation walkways so a train can either be brought alongside or help can come on foot from a station (they are about 500m apart)

 

[Clip]

You say you want a tram like system, which means road running but you also say you want a powered rail. I don't get why?

 

[Manchester77]

Surely it'd be cheaper to make the route a tram. It's pretty much all running down a road so why not save the cost of digging up the road and just pit it on the road? Then you can use the money saved for real time information etc

 

[W-on-Sea]

Why not save the cost of digging up the road and just pit it on the road?

Ho, ho! If you weren't familiar with the road in question, you might think that would work...

The stretch between Tarpots and Leigh, in particular, is prone to traffic jams, and not only in rush hours, while the A13 from Tarpots to Southend has only one lane in each direction for much of the way. Even attempts to add a bus lane to some sections have come to naught (albeit with some successes elsewhere), and attempts to widen those sections that could, relatively easily be widened, have mostly come to naught...

In short the road is both too busy and too narrow for a ground-level tramway to work...

 

[Manchester77]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zjxDM-izfK4/TLqZPUt_rpI/AAAAAAAAO9Q/AlRgdajdcBI/s1600/IMG_3691.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zjxDM-izfK4/TLqZOesYlQI/AAAAAAAAO84/_bJ4lsINZKA/s1600/IMG_3670.JPG

These images are of the East Manchester Line on the Metrolink. Busy roads shared with heavily used bus services but still works very well.
Is said road narrower than this?

 

[W-on-Sea]

Almost certainly not narrower than the road in the first photo - probably the most jam-prone stretch is around here.
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=le...=5cdTNhdj5iJ0xXimjK8ftw&cbp=12,278.42,,0,4.58

or here
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=le...=t4MPzBoKLB6xcVSe2bspOg&cbp=12,272.44,,0,0.38

(Proposals to add a bus lane here - and one really is needed here - were scrapped because of objections about road-widening and the consequent removal of the trees shown in that latter pic)


The problem is that this isn't an urban street (where there presumably - I guess - alterative routes available nearby) , like those in East Manchester (I presume...) - it's one of the two main roads connecting a fairly substantially sized town, Southend (including Westcliff, Leigh, etc) with the outside world. As such it is a major commuter artery for cars (and, to a lesser extent, buses); the context is rather different from, say, the narrow roads shared by trams and cars in some parts of Croydon: perhaps the scrapped West London tram (Uxbridge - Ealing - Shepherds Bush) would be an appropriate comparison, in some regards, in as much as that too was planned to run along the major road connecting central London with Uxbridge.

 

[Manchester77]

On the airport extension of the metrolink they are using the grass verges in the middle/at the side of roads.

But if we were to go with the OPs suggestion of cut and cover tunnels surely that's no better if its such a major inter regional road as that would still require major roadworks to construct.

 

[WatcherZero]

I've thought about that before. The problem is that if you have a squillion tourists coming, then having the VAL system in mid-air is visually intrusive, rendering it less-than-idea. On the other hand, I'm not convinced people would feel safe having an automatic train underground; if you have a staff presence on the train, as with the DLR, then it should be OK, but this is coming from someone with plentiful LUL/DLR experience and not an occasional user...



That seems too steep to me. Even the Jubilee extension cost only about £1bn, and that was about as extravagant as it gets.

Of course, if this was correct, then pipe dream becomes pipe nightmare.

Yes your right, second reading your proposal is a bit more modest than I first read but its the number of underground stations thats your main cost.

Roughly ballpark;
9 miles of cut and cover tunnels at approx £50m a mile, £450m,
four miles of surface track £40m,
depot slightly larger than Blackpools new Starrs Gate which cost £20m, so say £25-30m.
19 underground stations £50-£100m depending how much is underground, say its pretty near surface and only £50m 19x50 £950m,
6 above ground stations at £1m for basic low platform to £5m for high floor substantial station (upto £10m for a NR station), call it 2.5 x 6 £15m.
Rolling stock 16 x2 x£2.8m £90m,
Elecrification £200m,
Signalling £150m,
Land take £200m,
legal and planning +20%.

Total £2.55bn with no optimism bias, optimism bias +60% £4bn.

 

[Ivo]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. And I'm thinking cut-and-cover because we could do short stretches of, say, 20m a day on one side of the road, and then the next day do the other side. Disruptive yes, but then so is any other non-deep plan.

By the way, Southend Council did once have an idea for a DLR-like route - possibly even extension of the DLR itself! - along the route in question.

£50M a station though? hock:

You say you want a tram like system, which means road running but you also say you want a powered rail. I don't get why?

Having it like a tram simplifies the route's logistics, because there's much less in the way of complex signalling. But the simple fact is that the road is simply not practical for a tram route (as W-on-Sea, a former local, points out), and a powered rail on the underground stretches strikes me as cheaper than OHLE. Of course, a proper third rail wouldn't be - I'm thinking DLR territory here.

It's basically an intermediate between tram and light metro. Anyone who's ever been on the U-Bahn in Bonn might have an idea of what I mean.

 

[Clip]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. And I'm thinking cut-and-cover because we could do short stretches of, say, 20m a day on one side of the road, and then the next day do the other side. Disruptive yes, but then so is any other non-deep plan.

By the way, Southend Council did once have an idea for a DLR-like route - possibly even extension of the DLR itself! - along the route in question.

£50M a station though? hock:



Having it like a tram simplifies the route's logistics, because there's much less in the way of complex signalling. But the simple fact is that the road is simply not practical for a tram route (as W-on-Sea, a former local, points out), and a powered rail on the underground stretches strikes me as cheaper than OHLE. Of course, a proper third rail wouldn't be - I'm thinking DLR territory here.
then so
It's basically an intermediate between tram and light metro. Anyone who's ever been on the U-Bahn in Bonn might have an idea of what I mean.

Theres no difference from the DLR 3rd rail apart from its top to bottom connection. This also leads to the issue of having the shoes exposed facing up when they are not in contact with the rail and these are live at all times too and much easier for a person to come in contact with than a shoe that points downwards.

Ive not been on the U-Bhann in Bon but will look it up to find out.

 

[WatcherZero]

You think thats expensive for an underground station? an underground Heathrow station has been estimated at over £1bn!