British High Speed Railway Project Is Typically British

[Broomstick]

Fair point. I propose more research. I'd be very surprised if anything dating back to the Roman Empire was still viable as a pathogen but there's nothing wrong with being careful.

[madd0ct0r]

can anyone link me to breakdown of the HS2 costs? Can't find any.

[Magis]

Magis, I don't understand how the costs can be that high considering Germany is well known for paying engineers and lawyers very well and still we don't have that much. Our 124km new plan cost 2,4 bn total, including all consulting. So your explanation does not hold much water to me.

Let's not conflate two issues here. One issue could be the overall cost of the project, and that could indeed be unreasonably high. The second issue is the amount paid to consultants, and that may be quite reasonable - it depends on how much of the project is being left to consultants; it's hard to say definitively without details on what the consultants were actually doing.

Naturally, consultants take over any part of the project that cannot be performed by the government due to things like lack of staff, lack of technical expertise, lack of experience, etc. If we assume that the British government agencies involved in this project have no technical expertise at all, then the entire project design and management will be contracted to consultants, and I could see that cost reasonably reaching a couple billion dollars.

Now, to your claim that this work would be done by the German government if it were being constructed in Germany, and that in such a case the cost would be less than what the British are paying consultants, I think that is overly speculative. I wonder if you have any hard numbers to back this up. During my two minutes of googling I can't find any hard numbers spent by the German government on the design / licensing / management of similar projects (i.e. expenses unrelated to construction), taking into account things like staff salaries and benefits, office overhead, and so on. Can you provide the name of the Government ministry or agencies that would do this kind of work? I'd be interested in examining their annual budgets.

[edit] Just to make clear, your example of a project that cost 2.4 billion is probably the marginal cost to the department, as in, the additional cost to the department compared to if it didn't have that project. I very much doubt that it includes things like staff salaries (that would have been paid regardless), legacy costs, overhead, etc. I could be wrong, but again, it would be interesting to examine the budgets of these government agencies to get a better picture.

[Thanas]

Magis, I don't understand how the costs can be that high considering Germany is well known for paying engineers and lawyers very well and still we don't have that much. Our 124km new plan cost 2,4 bn total, including all consulting. So your explanation does not hold much water to me.

Let's not conflate two issues here. One issue could be the overall cost of the project, and that could indeed be unreasonably high. The second issue is the amount paid to consultants, and that may be quite reasonable - it depends on how much of the project is being left to consultants; it's hard to say definitively without details on what the consultants were actually doing.

Naturally, consultants take over any part of the project that cannot be performed by the government due to things like lack of staff, lack of technical expertise, lack of experience, etc. If we assume that the British government agencies involved in this project have no technical expertise at all, then the entire project design and management will be contracted to consultants, and I could see that cost reasonably reaching a couple billion dollars.

Are British engineers being paid in gold toilets or something? There is no way engineering should take that much, nor should other managing works cost that much as well.

Please provide what you would consider a reasonable breakdown of those 0.5 bn just for consulting.

Now, to your claim that this work would be done by the German government if it were being constructed in Germany, and that in such a case the cost would be less than what the British are paying consultants, I think that is overly speculative. I wonder if you have any hard numbers to back this up. During my two minutes of googling I can't find any hard numbers spent by the German government on the design / licensing / management of similar projects (i.e. expenses unrelated to construction), taking into account things like staff salaries and benefits, office overhead, and so on. Can you provide the name of the Government ministry or agencies that would do this kind of work? I'd be interested in examining their annual budgets.

That would be DB Projektbau, who do all project management, consulting, coordination, planning as well as building supervision. They employ 4415 people and in 2012 they charged 706,7 per year for all railway projects in all of Germany. Link in German.

[Simon_Jester]

Half a billion pounds would, for example, pay five thousand people to work for one year at an average per capita of hundred thousand pounds a year.

It might actually take five thousand engineers and other technical specialists a year to properly review, survey, and examine the full length of the proposed high-speed rail line, given the extreme complexity of some of the plans.

A hundred thousand pounds might be excessive for a consulting engineer, but it's at least within shouting distance of a reasonable figure, especially when overhead costs (like office facilities, travel expenses to visit sites, and so on) are factored in.

So if it actually takes several thousand man-years of skilled technical specialists' time to survey and prepare for this project, and it might for all I know, then half a billion pounds would be fairly reasonable. Just to give a sense of scale.

[energiewende]

The project will last longer than one year, and the employer-side cost of hiring someone is considerably more than their salary. 5,000 man-years at 40-50k nominal salary doesn't sound so much for a project of this size, especially when not all of those people are going to be designing and building the line. Many will be working mainly on regulatory compliance.

Consultants have a bad name. Yes they charge more, but that's to make up for the fact that they aren't guaranteed year-round employment. The government could maintain an office of hundreds of railway survey specialists at considerably lower per capita cost, but most years they would have nothing whatsoever to do.



The project defended, I must admit I don't understand how HS2 can be so much more costly than apparently comparable projects elsewhere. One possibility is that the comparisons are not valid, but if not that, what is the explanation?

[Magis]

Are British engineers being paid in gold toilets or something? There is no way engineering should take that much, nor should other managing works cost that much as well.

Please provide what you would consider a reasonable breakdown of those 0.5 bn just for consulting.

"Just for consulting" ? To me that implies that you think that consulting constitutes some small, perhaps trivial component to a project, is if consultants only do the tasks that the client doesn't want to bother with. So I'll say again, consulting consists of all services that the client cannot do alone. Depending on the capability of the client, 100% of the project will be executed by consultants with the client only providing capital.

Anyway, I gave some brief examples in a previous post of things a consultant might do. but I'll expand on them. This is just a small, partial list that I can mention off the top of my head.
-Pre-feasibility study
-Feasibility study
-Environmental impact studies applicable to multiple jurisdictions
-Regulatory compliance / licensing / permit acquisition
-Geology
-Property acquisition / land-take
-Community outreach / social impact (e.g. impact on parks, lakes, traffic, neighborhoods, property values, noise, etc.)
-Infrastructure needs (electricity requirements and distribution, water supply, accessibility, etc.)

-Train stations / platforms, which includes:
-Architecture
-Electrical / Civil engineering common to all buildings
-Ergonomics consultation for ticket booth design / seating (yes, this actually does happen)
-Service pattern usage studies for station placement/frequency and auto parking availability, if applicable

-Plus all technical work related to train car selection and specification of service requirements to the train manufacturer.

Pre-feasibility / feasibility / environmental impact are common to many projects and I think I've stated in another post that for a typical small mine in western Canada these studies alone approach $100 million, and are typically contracted out to unbiased, independent 3rd party engineering and financial firms.

Other elements will vary depending on the technical expertise needed and level of difficulty.

Now, to your claim that this work would be done by the German government if it were being constructed in Germany, and that in such a case the cost would be less than what the British are paying consultants, I think that is overly speculative. I wonder if you have any hard numbers to back this up. During my two minutes of googling I can't find any hard numbers spent by the German government on the design / licensing / management of similar projects (i.e. expenses unrelated to construction), taking into account things like staff salaries and benefits, office overhead, and so on. Can you provide the name of the Government ministry or agencies that would do this kind of work? I'd be interested in examining their annual budgets.

That would be DB Projektbau, who do all project management, consulting, coordination, planning as well as building supervision. They employ 4415 people and in 2012 they charged 706,7 per year for all railway projects in all of Germany. Link in German.

Okay, but but for the record, DB Projektbau is not a government agency or department, but a subsidiary of a publicly traded company (even though a majority of shares of Deutsche Bahn are owned by the German government, that is not the same as a government agency). In fact, DB Projektbau seems like it qualifies as a consulting group for D Bahn. Anyway, they list 706.7 million euro as revenue (in a single year), but that gives no indication as to what their costs were in providing their services. They might be operating at a loss. This information alone does not substantiate how much expense has gone into their execution of projects.

[Thanas]

"Just for consulting" ? To me that implies that you think that consulting constitutes some small, perhaps trivial component to a project, is if consultants only do the tasks that the client doesn't want to bother with. So I'll say again, consulting consists of all services that the client cannot do alone. Depending on the capability of the client, 100% of the project will be executed by consultants with the client only providing capital.

My apologies for not being clear enough for you to understand it. No slights were intended.

Okay, but but for the record, DB Projektbau is not a government agency or department, but a subsidiary of a publicly traded company (even though a majority of shares of Deutsche Bahn are owned by the German government, that is not the same as a government agency).

In the case of DB these are semantics.

In fact, DB Projektbau seems like it qualifies as a consulting group for D Bahn.

No, it does not. Not if you want to define consulting as external help.

Anyway, they list 706.7 million euro as revenue (in a single year), but that gives no indication as to what their costs were in providing their services. They might be operating at a loss. This information alone does not substantiate how much expense has gone into their execution of projects.

You are more than welcome to trawl the internet for evidence to prove your point. As it stands, given that they essentially charge themselves, it stands to reason they would not operate at a loss.

[Simon_Jester]

The project will last longer than one year, and the employer-side cost of hiring someone is considerably more than their salary. 5,000 man-years at 40-50k nominal salary doesn't sound so much for a project of this size, especially when not all of those people are going to be designing and building the line.

I agree with this- I gave a rather conservative estimate, in my opinion.

Many will be working mainly on regulatory compliance.

I find it interesting to imagine how the high speed rail line would look if we dispensed with the regulations and relied on fear of lawsuits to make sure it's reliable.

That would be fun to watch, from a certain point of view.

Consultants have a bad name. Yes they charge more, but that's to make up for the fact that they aren't guaranteed year-round employment. The government could maintain an office of hundreds of railway survey specialists at considerably lower per capita cost, but most years they would have nothing whatsoever to do.

Alternatively, they would do essentially the same kind of project, but slower; much of this work could have been done ten years ago if there were anyone responsible enough to plan that far ahead.

[Sea Skimmer]

All that engineering work isn't just paper pushing either. Every single place they want a tunnel for example requires multiple test bores along its length. Depending on depth, land use rights ect... each bore alone can be anywhere from almost free to several hundred thousand dollars. So... fifty miles of tunnel, oh that adds up fast on its own, and that's just to generate data for one aspect of paper pushing.

Considering the status of the 'engineering' that has gone into the new Berlin airport (what DOES work at that place anyway?), or the huge cost overruns at the Stuttgart train station I wonder just how robust we should consider present German civil engineering studies in the first place. Last I heard that station and a few miles of approach track are now expected to cost nine billion USD alone.

Its really really easy to cheap out on estimates up front, and just spend billions extra actually building the thing because your estimates were nonsense.

[Magis]

Anyway, they list 706.7 million euro as revenue (in a single year), but that gives no indication as to what their costs were in providing their services. They might be operating at a loss. This information alone does not substantiate how much expense has gone into their execution of projects.

You are more than welcome to trawl the internet for evidence to prove your point. As it stands, given that they essentially charge themselves, it stands to reason they would not operate at a loss.

I don't feel the need to provide evidence of this at all, because I am not asserting a claim. On the other hand, you asserted a claim that DB Projektbau could provide engineering services for less cost than the British consultants involved in HS2. Your evidence of that claim was that DB Projektbau charged for its services. I'm merely pointing out that what DB Projektbau charged for services and what DB Projektbau spent to provide services are not the same, and in fact one cannot even be inferred from the other.

That said, even if we are concerned only with what was charged, which seems logical, then the 2.4 billion euros/year of DB Projektbau needs to be contrasted to the 220 million euros (185 million pounds) spent over a 1.5 year period on HS2 (Wikipedia says the project was approved in January 2012).

So, 2.4 billion euros/year vs. 147 million euros/year. In other words, HS2 consultants have charged on an annual basis 16 times less , or 6.125%, that of DB Projektbau, on what seems to be a very large project. Does DB Projektbau manage the equivalent of 16 HS2 projects simultaneously? I simply do not see what is unreasonable about the British figures, but I will repeat once more: I'm not claiming that the consulting expenses are reasonable, because I don't know what services were provided. But with these numbers it's hard to make the case that the British fees are unreasonable, either.

[PeZook]

Its really really easy to cheap out on estimates up front, and just spend billions extra actually building the thing because your estimates were nonsense.

That's basically how all Polish highways are being built. Nobody can win the tender unless they give the lowest price, so all prices are lowballed and even a slight hiccup in, say, global prices of construction materials, can ruin the project.

And it happens.

A lot.

[Siege]

On the upside though in that case the highways that result are glorious.

PS: Happens on big infra projects here too. Like the North-South line in Amsterdam that was mentioned. Over time, over budget, and a bunch of 17th century houses now have damaged foundations. Oops! Turns out engineering is hard!

[PeZook]

They're glorious after they're fixed, because they start coming apart at the seams weeks after opening

[salm]

Considering the status of the 'engineering' that has gone into the new Berlin airport (what DOES work at that place anyway?),

The biggest lol there was when they planted one thousand trees. The wrong trees. Three years later they tore them out and planted other trees.

[Thanas]

Considering the status of the 'engineering' that has gone into the new Berlin airport (what DOES work at that place anyway?), or the huge cost overruns at the Stuttgart train station I wonder just how robust we should consider present German civil engineering studies in the first place. Last I heard that station and a few miles of approach track are now expected to cost nine billion USD alone.

Both of those happened with massive political interference and are not an indicator of the quality of work provided.

Your evidence of that claim was that DB Projektbau charged for its services. I'm merely pointing out that what DB Projektbau charged for services and what DB Projektbau spent to provide services are not the same

They might very well be, considering you give the same benefit of the doubt to consultants. If you want to claim DB Projektbau is severely operating at a loss, then you have to provide figures for that. I have not found one source claiming that DB is using them to run a negative.

That said, even if we are concerned only with what was charged, which seems logical, then the 2.4 billion euros/year of DB Projektbau needs to be contrasted to the 220 million euros (185 million pounds) spent over a 1.5 year period on HS2 (Wikipedia says the project was approved in January 2012).

So, 2.4 billion euros/year vs. 147 million euros/year. In other words, HS2 consultants have charged on an annual basis 16 times less , or 6.125%, that of DB Projektbau, on what seems to be a very large project. Does DB Projektbau manage the equivalent of 16 HS2 projects simultaneously? I simply do not see what is unreasonable about the British figures, but I will repeat once more: I'm not claiming that the consulting expenses are reasonable, because I don't know what services were provided. But with these numbers it's hard to make the case that the British fees are unreasonable, either.

They have around 3000 projects with a complete volume of 88 bn EUR in 2010, which probably has increased since then. They currently are managing the construction and planning of 1064 km of high speed tracks in seven of those projects alone and are also figuring out how to rebuilt the S-Bahn terminals in Berlin, the main railway connect in Nurnberg and how to build the German part of tunnel under the Baltic sea to connect Germany with Denmark. So IMO they do much more than 16 times the equivalent of HS2 but until somebody even provides what those consultants do other than nebulous words I don't even know.

[energiewende]

Many will be working mainly on regulatory compliance.

I find it interesting to imagine how the high speed rail line would look if we dispensed with the regulations and relied on fear of lawsuits to make sure it's reliable.

That would be fun to watch, from a certain point of view.

That's how Britain built the world's first ever railways. But regulatory compliance in this context mostly means environmental and planning bureaucracy, rather than safety of the actual line which is a technical issue of clear practical utility and therefore passé.

I don't necessarily mean to slur regulation in any case; there is an honest debate to be had whether a common law tort system or a statutory command and control system is preferable. I merely find it interesting that most of the people who support extensive regulation are the same people who support state construction of railways and the same people who blame private contractors when those projects turn out to be far more expensive than they expect.

Consultants have a bad name. Yes they charge more, but that's to make up for the fact that they aren't guaranteed year-round employment. The government could maintain an office of hundreds of railway survey specialists at considerably lower per capita cost, but most years they would have nothing whatsoever to do.

Alternatively, they would do essentially the same kind of project, but slower; much of this work could have been done ten years ago if there were anyone responsible enough to plan that far ahead.

Perhaps, but what's the use of that? The cost in terms of man-years in the same, just with fewer men and more years. There are also obvious disadvantages of doing this way, ie. the regulations will have changed after 10 years so much of the work will need to be repeated, costing even more money.

[Simon_Jester]

Many will be working mainly on regulatory compliance.

I find it interesting to imagine how the high speed rail line would look if we dispensed with the regulations and relied on fear of lawsuits to make sure it's reliable.

That would be fun to watch, from a certain point of view.

That's how Britain built the world's first ever railways. But regulatory compliance in this context mostly means environmental and planning bureaucracy, rather than safety of the actual line which is a technical issue of clear practical utility and therefore passé.

I don't necessarily mean to slur regulation in any case; there is an honest debate to be had whether a common law tort system or a statutory command and control system is preferable. I merely find it interesting that most of the people who support extensive regulation are the same people who support state construction of railways and the same people who blame private contractors when those projects turn out to be far more expensive than they expect.

]Alternatively, they [the railway surveyors] would do essentially the same kind of project, but slower; much of this work could have been done ten years ago if there were anyone responsible enough to plan that far ahead.

Perhaps, but what's the use of that? The cost in terms of man-years in the same, just with fewer men and more years. There are also obvious disadvantages of doing this way, ie. the regulations will have changed after 10 years so much of the work will need to be repeated, costing even more money.

I think in a well-governed system, the issues of regulatory compliance could be handled without too much trouble.

As to why have a smaller group take more time... personally, I suspect that this leads to better results, because it enables the creation of an experienced 'cadre' familiar with local conditions and techniques, instead of every problem being entirely new to the institution hired to solve it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Both of those happened with massive political interference and are not an indicator of the quality of work provided.

Dealing with politics is part of the job, and does not excuse stuff like air vent systems that don't work. If such a system was not going to work it should have never been built ect.. but it was. But oh so funny that you think that can just excuse mass incompetence in Germany with politics, and the fact that the British funding has had to repeatedly pay for completely changes to the right of way, in other words throwing out all the earlier work and starting over, on HS2, doesn't count?

They have around 3000 projects with a complete volume of 88 bn EUR in 2010, which probably has increased since then. They currently are managing the construction and planning of 1064 km of high speed tracks in seven of those projects alone and are also figuring out how to rebuilt the S-Bahn terminals in Berlin, the main railway connect in Nurnberg and how to build the German part of tunnel under the Baltic sea to connect Germany with Denmark. So IMO they do much more than 16 times the equivalent of HS2 but until somebody even provides what those consultants do other than nebulous words I don't even know.

How many of those projects are in the detail, bid ready, engineering phase? Because that's what costs real money and produces real estimates. I think you have no damn clue what goes into engineering a major project at all. Not even slightly. Just because someone is a consultant does not mean they do no work.

[Thanas]

How many of those projects are in the detail, bid ready, engineering phase? Because that's what costs real money and produces real estimates.

All of the main projects I listed have either started building already or are currently searching for final bids, except for 1 where they have just finished preliminary planning.

Dealing with politics is part of the job, and does not excuse stuff like air vent systems that don't work. If such a system was not going to work it should have never been built ect.. but it was. But oh so funny that you think that can just excuse mass incompetence in Germany with politics, and the fact that the British funding has had to repeatedly pay for completely changes to the right of way, in other words throwing out all the earlier work and starting over, on HS2, doesn't count?

Please provide figures for what part of the consulting costs were incurred due to this.

[Sea Skimmer]

All of the main projects I listed have either started building already or are currently searching for final bids, except for 1 where they have just finished preliminary planning.

So the money was blatantly already spent previously to engineer them. You don't detail engineer stuff like that in one year.

Please provide figures for what part of the consulting costs were incurred due to this.

Sure, right after you provide a actual cost breakdown of what DB Projektbau actually spent for the projects you claim prove the British are massively overspending. I'm not doing your work for you. I am very tired of this out of you, you always demand sources from people, and never provide them yourself. I can't find a single reference anywhere to a entirely new 124km right of way being built recently in Germany, and since most German high speed lines have been adaptions of existing rights of way, count me skeptical that it really is one.

[K. A. Pital]

Um Sea Skimmer, 20 seconds of googling.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt%E ... ed_railway

[Sea Skimmer]

That says 123km, and other stuff I now find suggests its actually 120km, me searching for 124km may have been the issue. But I also see physical construction work on that line started in 1996 meaning that the present day engineering budget has nothing at all to do with its engineering costs and a lot of construction was done back then too. It'd sure be nice to be able to backdate one's prices to 1996 fuel costs!

I also see it also is only designed for 300km running vs 400km running intended for the HS2 line, which is a very serious different in cost of everything, and certainly does not have a third of its length buried underground, and also exploits an existing right of way for about 25km of what would otherwise be some of its most expensive running within the city Leipzig. The HS2 line as pointed out before, is making an 8 mile tunnel for a comparable chunk of its line. Apples and oranges.

[K. A. Pital]

The questionable part of HS2, however, is not whether current costs are reasonable. It is whether the decisions that led to current costs are justified. A bridge-based line would be likely cheaper, for instance.

[Sea Skimmer]

Oh sure, I agree with that, viaducts for very high speed rail can actually be cheaper then building at grade level in certain ground conditions too. That's why the Chinese lines have so many of them everywhere. However they also let the trains project noise over a wider area, and some people in the world don't like the skyline changing in the countryside.

My problem is merely with someone insisting from completely incompatible examples that the costs are somehow wrong. In fact I suspect the people who believe the British estimate is still too low are most likely right given the uncertainties of cost projections going as far as two decades into the future. The same thing is plaguing the current California high speed rail line, and the plan to convert the North East Corridor to 300kph running (240kph currently possible on a few bits, using a right of way from before the US civil war no less) and both of which are estimated in the ~150 billion USD range.

However the fact remains the line should only be built to serve the public interest, and if the public is not interested in loud 400kph trains going by, then the plan either has to change to accommodate them, which means more cost, or it just wont be built. Going slower would help everything too, but then the line would have less ability to compete with airlines in service speed which is a major selling point.