Have railways became too expensive to build/improve?

[mrmartin]

It seems to me in the UK construction costs for railways are now so high that there is really no benefit cost measure that will be much above 1, despite extremely aggressively hyping the economic benefits.

Someone in another thread was wanting the £29bn roads plan to be cancelled (similar to welsh govt) and invested into railways/public transport. But what would that actually buy? 100km of high speed rail? Maybe 200 route km of 'total track' upgrade like TRU? It's not really going to be transformative to the UK economy outside of the small area it covers, unfortunately - and I speak as someone who is extremely pro HS2.

Even small stations seem to cost an eye watering amount, that are extremely hard to justify.

Take Bristol for example, it desperately needs some sort of heavyish rail system, but projected costs of a metro were £10bn+. Compare that to the Tyne and Wear metro; which cost about £250m in 1984 money, or about £1bn now adjusted for inflation. I imagine these schemes are roughly comparable in scope, yet the bristol cost projection is 10x that in inflation adjusted numbers. Something has clearly went really wrong here. £1bn seems to buy you a few km of four tracking and electrification, or one station on the EL (whitechapel cost around that i believe?).

Ironically there is much more cross party political will these days to invest in railways, but the costs are so high that it is hard to justify. What's even more worrying is it doesn't seem to me that cost increases are slowing down at all, if anything the opposite. Perhaps in 10 years that £10bn projection for a bristol metro will look extremely affordable?

 

[cphilb]

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 and that remedial measures to keep locals happy are not as necessary as in the UK. As an example of this, in my hometown of Malaga - the projected cost of building a 1.8km extension of Malaga Metro line 2 from Guadelmedina to the new Hospital civil is €180 Million. This extension will be all undergound and will have 3 new stations. Malagaa also has expensive real estate - though not close to London costs - but in Malaga you can't burrow more than 10 metres without coming across archeological remains from the Phoenecian/Roman/Visigoth/Moorish/Renaissance period which have to be fully investigated and usually preserved. What is the reason for the difference in costs?

 

[Mikey C]

Agreed, but then that seems to apply to every construction project in the UK now. A £2m local road project seems to barely buy you more than a roundabout and slightly widened approach roads.

 

[Chris Butler]

My thoughts entirely. My further thoughts:-

1. It doesn't seem the same costs prevail elsewhere.
   
   
2. It's easy to see things that probably contribute to the situation, but I can't see which of them really drives it and which are just 'pet peeves'.
   
   
3. In all the studies of the railways from Serpell right through to now, I've never seen any of them even try to understand what is driving the costs. A couple have tried to compare costs to other countries, but not get to why they are different.
   
   
4. The current quartet of a) pseudo-independent companies that are in-fact 100% owned by the public, b) political masters, c) the 'civil service' (DfT, TfL) and d) media focussed on timescales of days/hours seem to actually exacerbate the problem, not get to resolve it.
   
   Even to this cynic, the extent of their combined mismanagement is shocking.
   
   Example 1: The complete shambles that is HS2.
   
   Example 2: The breathtaking ability of the Elizabeth Line project management to pull the wool over Khan/TfL's eyes and convince them that the project was 'on budget' and a month or so from opening and for all concerned to escape any accountability.

Very depressing.

Agreed, but then that seems to apply to every construction project in the UK now. A £2m local road project seems to barely buy you more than a roundabout and slightly widened approach roads.

Indeed. I didn't want to go there, but I think it's true.

 

[Meerkat]

They spend huge amounts before even getting a spade out. The documentation is ridiculous, the number of reports for every species imaginable, airports, water, trees, diversity and inclusion impacts. It goes on and on.
What is Spanish H&S and welfare provision like - building sites here have hugely better provision than the bad old days

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Extremely frustrating- it needs a Beeching to nail down all costs analytically and then tackle them ideally in 1 general election cycle.

 

[JonathanH]

The documentation is ridiculous, the number of reports for every species imaginable, airports, water, trees, diversity and inclusion impacts.

The irony of course that no one takes notice of the impact of the status quo on such matters.

 

[cphilb]

They spend huge amounts before even getting a spade out. The documentation is ridiculous, the number of reports for every species imaginable, airports, water, trees, diversity and inclusion impacts. It goes on and on.
What is Spanish H&S and welfare provision like - building sites here have hugely better provision than the bad old days

Spanish H&S and welfare has improved immeasuraby recently - mainly due to the EU. I am not sure if it is as strict as the UK, but construction in Spain is safe and there doesn't seem to be many reports of site incidents

 

[Meerkat]

Extremely frustrating- it needs a Beeching to nail down all costs analytically and then tackle them ideally in 1 general election cycle.

Which bit is going wrong though. Everything is value engineered, and contractors have a motivation to have the cheapest bid.

 

[HSTEd]

Which bit is going wrong though. Everything is value engineered, and contractors have a motivation to have the cheapest bid.

Value Engineering costs (a lot) of money, and contractors are incentivised to have the cheapest bid, not to actually deliver for the minimum cost.

The reality is that personnel are now the major driver on costs, not the consumption of manufactured goods.
I'd argue we'd get better results if we didn't do so much value engineering and just designed based on a set set of rules and then just built the thing with the minimum of additional effort.

 

[zwk500]

Extremely frustrating- it needs a Beeching to nail down all costs analytically and then tackle them ideally in 1 general election cycle.

You've flirted with a key part of the answer - poltiical concerns constantly moving goalposts.

 

[Brubulus]

Value Engineering costs (a lot) of money, and contractors are incentivised to have the cheapest bid, not to actually deliver for the minimum cost.

The reality is that personnel are now the major driver on costs, not the consumption of manufactured goods.
I'd argue we'd get better results if we didn't do so much value engineering and just designed based on a set set of rules and then just built the thing with the minimum of additional effort.

Would agree with this, standardisation almost always saves far more than "cost cutting". The rail industry could do with a very large amount of standardisation and less of a myopic focus on reducing costs in one specific situation.

 

[The exile]

Spanish H&S and welfare has improved immeasuraby recently - mainly due to the EU. I am not sure if it is as strict as the UK, but construction in Spain is safe and there doesn't seem to be many reports of site incidents

Ah, but there's a sliding scale of safety between "safe" and "Safe" - the first being "reduce risk to as low as reasonably possible taking all considerations (including the "wider picture") into account and bearing in mind everyone's individual responsibility" and the second being "reduce risk to as low as physically possible - viewed in isolation, and particularly being able to prove that every step was taken to avoid every feasible incident - all of which we are going to be liable for". I suspect that Spain and the United Kingdom are at different places along that sliding scale. Thinking about Germany rather than Spain (and aware that things may have changed in the last 15 years) - I imagine lawyers here would make short shrift of notices on areas accessible to the public saying "this area will not be gritted in wintry weather" (or indeed the ubiquitous "parents are legally responsible for their children"['s actions])

 

[HSTEd]

Ah, but there's a sliding scale of safety between "safe" and "Safe" - the first being "reduce risk to as low as reasonably possible taking all considerations (including the "wider picture") into account and bearing in mind everyone's individual responsibility" and the second being "reduce risk to as low as physically possible - viewed in isolation, and particularly being able to prove that every step was taken to avoid every feasible incident - all of which we are going to be liable for". I suspect that Spain and the United Kingdom are at different places along that sliding scale. Thinking about Germany rather than Spain (and aware that things may have changed in the last 15 years) - I imagine lawyers here would make short shrift of notices on areas accessible to the public saying "this area will not be gritted in wintry weather" (or indeed the ubiquitous "parents are legally responsible for their children"['s actions])

ULtimately ALARP/SFAIRP has become a major problem in Britain.

Proving things are as "safe as is reasonably practicable" consumes vast amounts of extremely highly paid labour. Costs go through the roof and huge delays are imposed, driving costs even higher.

Really we need prescriptive standards that can be almost mindlessly applied, preferably largely algorithmically with a minimum of engineering effort required.

Things like "A standard platform will be this tall, this wide and this long, it will be made of this material and conform to the structural cross section seen in inset B"

Structures constructed according to the standard would be deemed almost automatically acceptable.

 

[DarloRich]

Ah, but there's a sliding scale of safety between "safe" and "Safe" - the first being "reduce risk to as low as reasonably possible taking all considerations (including the "wider picture") into account and bearing in mind everyone's individual responsibility" and the second being "reduce risk to as low as physically possible - viewed in isolation, and particularly being able to prove that every step was taken to avoid every feasible incident - all of which we are going to be liable for". I suspect that Spain and the United Kingdom are at different places along that sliding scale. Thinking about Germany rather than Spain (and aware that things may have changed in the last 15 years) - I imagine lawyers here would make short shrift of notices on areas accessible to the public saying "this area will not be gritted in wintry weather" (or indeed the ubiquitous "parents are legally responsible for their children"['s actions])

We STILL kill far too many construction workers in this country. The details are here: https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm There are 30 construction worker deaths noted. That is too many for me. Is it too many for you?

BTW it isn't "reduce risk to as low as physically possible" but "as low as reasonably practicable" which is a very different definition.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

We STILL kill far too many construction workers in this country. The details are here: https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm There are 30 construction worker deaths noted. That is too many for me. Is it too many for you?

YES, YES and YES

BTW it isn't "reduce risk to as low as physically possible" but "as low as reasonably practicable" which is a very different definition.

ALARP

 

[Dr Hoo]

Some years ago Network Rail was very keen on 'Modular Stations'. Examples include Greenhithe, Mitcham Eastfields, Corby and Buckshaw Parkway.

Besides the obvious idea of having one set of basic designs that could be adapted to number of platforms, whether staffed or not, etc., the components were designed for pre-fabrication, avoiding 'wet trades' on site and so on, to allow rapid construction. This then allowed very rapid mobilisation and de-mobilisation rather than having contractors' compounds, clerks of works, security, welfare accommodation and whatnot 'on hire' for months on end.

What happened to the idea?

 

[Brubulus]

ULtimately ALARP/SFAIRP has become a major problem in Britain.

Proving things are as "safe as is reasonably practicable" consumes vast amounts of extremely highly paid labour. Costs go through the roof and huge delays are imposed, driving costs even higher.

Really we need prescriptive standards that can be almost mindlessly applied, preferably largely algorithmically with a minimum of engineering effort required.

Things like "A standard platform will be this tall, this wide and this long, it will be made of this material and conform to the structural cross section seen in inset B"

Structures constructed according to the standard would be deemed almost automatically acceptable.

Some years ago Network Rail was very keen on 'Modular Stations'. Examples include Greenhithe, Mitcham Eastfields, Corby and Buckshaw Parkway.

Besides the obvious idea of having one set of basic designs that could be adapted to number of platforms, whether staffed or not, etc., the components were designed for pre-fabrication, avoiding 'wet trades' on site and so on, to allow rapid construction. This then allowed very rapid mobilisation and de-mobilisation rather than having contractors' compounds, clerks of works, security, welfare accommodation and whatnot 'on hire' for months on end.

What happened to the idea?

Standardisation always massively lowers costs but the standard design ends up needing to be proved it's safe every single time. Just prove it as safe once and don't replicate but there are always a huge number of people who are desperate to justify their own existence.

 

[HSTEd]

Some years ago Network Rail was very keen on 'Modular Stations'. Examples include Greenhithe, Mitcham Eastfields, Corby and Buckshaw Parkway.

Besides the obvious idea of having one set of basic designs that could be adapted to number of platforms, whether staffed or not, etc., the components were designed for pre-fabrication, avoiding 'wet trades' on site and so on, to allow rapid construction. This then allowed very rapid mobilisation and de-mobilisation rather than having contractors' compounds, clerks of works, security, welfare accommodation and whatnot 'on hire' for months on end.

What happened to the idea?

Standardisation does not (currently) relieve you of the requirement for a risk assessment.

You end up spending huge sums of money on design iteration as a result.

We STILL kill far too many construction workers in this country. The details are here: https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm There are 30 construction worker deaths noted. That is too many for me. Is it too many for you?

30 deaths is tragic, but given that 600,000 people die every year.....

Delays and massive cost escalations in transport projects, the focus of this thread, could easily kill more people than would be killed by the construction work.

For every person killed in construction 50 are killed on the roads.

BTW it isn't "reduce risk to as low as physically possible" but "as low as reasonably practicable" which is a very different definition.

The reality is that they are increasingly the same, due to the extreme disproportion factors that are insisted upon by modern regulators.

 

[Legolash2o]

Isn't there an element of we want to do A and B, and then eventually people demand C, D, E, ..., M making it a huge project?

 

[DarloRich]

30 deaths is tragic, but given that 600,000 people die every year.....

Delays and massive cost escalations in transport projects, the focus of this thread, could easily kill more people than would be killed by the construction work.

For every person killed in construction 50 are killed on the roads.

So 30 people not going home after work is ok because other people die? That is, frankly, nonsense.

I have worked on building sites and some of the things we did then make me shiver now. I have seen what happens when it goes wrong. It isn't nice. Luckily ( VERY luckily in one case) I haven't seen anyone die but I for one am very happy with the requirement to put up scaffold when working on the roof or edge boards to stop you falling off a scaffold. Others may think that is nanny stateism. They are wrong. It might cost more but it might keep my mate Dave alive to go to the match with me on Saturday. If that means your construction project is more expensive then tough. It is better than killing someone.

OBVIOUSLY you cant remove entirely the risk of hurting or killing someone in an environment where working at height or depth, moving heavy equipment, utilities, tools etc are found in abundance but you CAN make it harder.

Also how could "Delays and massive cost escalations in transport projects, the focus of this thread, ... easily kill more people than would be killed by the construction work"? that is going to need some explanation?

PS this thread isn't about the number of people who die on the roads. That is shocking and awful but has no bearing on this topic.

The reality is that they are increasingly the same, due to the extreme disproportion factors that are insisted upon by modern regulators.

I don't agree - have you an example that you could share to illustrate the point?

there are always a huge number of people who are desperate to justify their own existence.

Aye, I am sure that is what causes the problems.

 

[Irascible]

Which bit is going wrong though. Everything is value engineered, and contractors have a motivation to have the cheapest bid.

Auditors with teeth needed, perhaps. I've no idea where all the money actually goes in construction, but having seen money ( especially public money ) seemingly disappearing elsewhere I'm not going to rule out less than stellar honesty on a scale large enough to run into politics.

Money spent on H&S isn't a waste, unless it's duplicated effort. Some more money spent on education might reduce workplace risk too.

 

[sjoh]

So 30 people not going home after work is ok because other people die? That is, frankly, nonsense.

I have worked on building sites and some of the things we did then make me shiver now. I have seen what happens when it goes wrong. It isn't nice. Luckily ( VERY luckily in one case) I haven't seen anyone die but I for one am very happy with the requirement to put up scaffold when working on the roof or edge boards to stop you falling off a scaffold. Others may think that is nanny stateism. They are wrong. It might cost more but it might keep my mate Dave alive to go to the match with me on Saturday. If that means your construction project is more expensive then tough. It is better than killing someone.

OBVIOUSLY you cant remove entirely the risk of hurting or killing someone in an environment where working at height or depth, moving heavy equipment, utilities, tools etc are found in abundance but you CAN make it harder.

Also how could "Delays and massive cost escalations in transport projects, the focus of this thread, ... easily kill more people than would be killed by the construction work"? that is going to need some explanation?

PS this thread isn't about the number of people who die on the roads. That is shocking and awful but has no bearing on this topic.


I don't agree - have you an example that you could share to illustrate the point?


Aye, I am sure that is what causes the problems.

I've no particular horse in this race, but presumably HSTed is referring to situations of indirect impact - i.e. the risk of deaths from continued air pollution from trucks for the additional years a rail transport project isn't completed etc etc. Obviously, v hard to quantify!

+ I don't think for one second that anyone is suggesting that any death is okay, here...

 

[Dr Day]

More questions than answers as I'm not a cost engineer but..

Has railway construction inflation outstripped other major construction inflation? Certainly at a domestic level the cost of materials has rocketed in the past few years, and labour costs have increased too. Factors include Brexit, Ukraine, global supply and other external cost drivers.

Is part of the issue with railways the added cost of possessions?

Is part of the issue not the pure civil engineering, but the more bespoke elements that (say) road projects don't have? Whilst the basics of a railway bridge will be the same civil engineering as a road bridge, railways need track, signalling etc.

Poor business cases are also a function of high day-to-day operating costs relative to revenues and benefits as well as the capital elements.

 

[railfan99]

My thoughts entirely. My further thoughts:-

1. It doesn't seem the same costs prevail elsewhere.

If by this 'elsewhere' meant 'other nations', sorry to disappoint, but my island continent nation almost certainly has the highest construction costs in the world. Labour costs are a significant factor.

Regrettably, my state of Victoria (capital: Melbourne c.5.1 million) eclipses the other five states.

 

[zwk500]

If by this 'elsewhere' meant 'other nations', sorry to disappoint, but my island continent nation almost certainly has the highest construction costs in the world. Labour costs are a significant factor.

Regrettably, my state of Victoria (capital: Melbourne c.5.1 million) eclipses the other five states.

Indeed. the US is also victim to spiralling infrastructure costs.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Priorities are certainly out of whack. We put way too much emphasis on planning and environmental concerns, forgetting that rail is a brilliant way to save the environment and ease planning pressures.

It's worth also realizing that in the current climate, people would have a screaming fit if it was suggested spending a BILLION POUNDS to bring about a system like the Tyne and Wear Metro (which of course saved a lot of money by making much use of old alignments and existing stations).

They would think you were mad, absolutely rejecting the idea such a sum is cheap. Ministers would be expected to account for why they are spending that amount of money on a railway, when it could be spent on nurses. Or nurses. Or nurses. Or even nurses.

This is the environment where transport funding has to be justified, even though cost benefit calculations never capture simple realities like the fact most immigrant nurses get to work by bus, and most early/late buses are under threat because of council funding cuts, and council funding cuts are a thing because that's a great way to make sure the national health budget can be sustained, even though a large and always increasing chunk of it is wages.

 

[railfan99]

Indeed. the US is also victim to spiralling infrastructure costs.

Another has alluded above to poorly considered plans.

In my nation, builders large and small often make a large amount of money from implementing 'variations', some of which could have been avoided had engineers and cost estimators more carefully laid out what was desired. It's easy for me to shoot from the keyboard and criticise, some will say, but these individuals are specialists so just like a plumber who turns up to repair one's toilet or hot water, there ought not be any 'leaks' left when the documentation is ready for tenders to be called.

In Australia, road projects are just as likely as rail ones to hugely blow out in cost. Historically a 30 per cent contingency allowance was included. This never seems sufficient in 2023. The building materials index (of costs) seems to increase faster than CPI, and was doing so pre-COVID and still is today.

I've no particular horse in this race, but presumably HSTed is referring to situations of indirect impact - i.e. the risk of deaths from continued air pollution from trucks for the additional years a rail transport project isn't completed etc etc. Obviously, v hard to quantify!

Or the risk of fewer Britons travelling by rail if HS2 isn't completed 'on time'. Hence more will travel by road: more dangerous, with fatalities sadly more common.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Would agree with this, standardisation almost always saves far more than "cost cutting". The rail industry could do with a very large amount of standardisation and less of a myopic focus on reducing costs in one specific situation.

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. Outside consultants got their claws in and wanted to reinvent everything and when that didn't work more consultants were bought it who didn't make it any better and then the industry got stuffed with 1000's of people man marking each other.

In BR I was the Project Engineer on many electrification schemes and that role encompassed planning, engineering, contract management and project managing the whole thing. What i had access to was the Divisional engineering teams who provided solutions and technical backup and they largely traded on their technical knowledge and experience and when an engineer signed the drawings off that was good enough. Now we have a plethora of process and procedures that make even straight forward repetitive tasks become weighed down with huge on costs as no one can be trusted anymore. Oh and once you get consultants involved they over engineer everything to ensure their reputation is protected. This could be overcome if there was a will again from the top that BR had and also govts that forced them to confront the waste and find cost effective safe solutions. Allowing NR to just load up the credit card and accept cost overruns as almost acceptable did severe damage to the BR culture of working with less and we now have a whole generation who can't accept that its being over engineered or that a cheaper solution will deliver perfectly well down a branch line.

 

[The exile]

BTW it isn't "reduce risk to as low as physically possible" but "as low as reasonably practicable" which is a very different definition.

I didn’t say where on the sliding scale either country originally mentioned was- just that I suspect they are in different places.