Was tunneling added to mitigate objections? Of course not!

One of the lines which has recently been spouted by proponents of HS2 is that the only reason the costs of the project have spiralled, is because of all the tunnels they have generously added to try and shut up us pesky objectors.

We’ve known this not to be the case ever since the 2011 consultation event in Wendover, when engineers admitted that the deep cutting between two tunnels was ‘unsustainable’ and the only real option was to join the tunnels together, and of course everyone who saw the impact of the original surface route for Hangar Lane in Ealing and the Chiltern Line in Ruislip surely knew it would only be a matter of time before HS2 Ltd realised what they were proposing was insane.

But just exactly how much of the new tunneling has been added for reasons of environmental mitigation, and how much has needed to compensate for engineering mistakes in the original designs? John Marriott investigates:

The debate in the House of Lords this week featured several comments arguing that the cost of Phase One was high because of all the extra tunnelling that had been added to try and placate objectors and to reduce the environmental impact. How much extra tunnelling has been added and why?

The initial scheme published in 2010 had just over 20km of tunnels. Just over half of this was in the Chilterns AONB for the main 9.6km Amersham tunnel and a 1km tunnel near Little Missenden. The tunnels connecting Euston to Old Oak Common accounted for 7.4km. There was also a 1.4km tunnel under Long Itchington wood which sits on top of a hill. I think it could be argued that these were absolutely the minimum amounts of tunnelling for the proposed route through the Chilterns.

Before consultation in 2011 some minor changes were made which increased the tunnelling by 2km. This was mainly because short “green tunnels” were added at South Heath and Chipping Warden. In both cases these replaced deep cuttings necessitated by the undulating topography.

In 2012, following Consultation, the length of tunnelling increased by 13km to just over 35km. The largest change was the addition of a 4.4km tunnel near Ruislip as an alternative to trying to accommodate the HS2 tracks alongside the existing Chiltern / Underground tracks. A driver for this change was almost certainly the difficulty and cost of achieving a surface route. The fact that the surface route was limited to 250kph whereas a tunnel offered speeds up to 320kph may also have been influential given HS2’s lust for speed. Significant technical problems in the Chilterns led to the decision to join the Amersham and Little Missenden tunnels into one which increased the length of tunnelling there by 2.5km. The Wendover tunnel was extended by 800m to reduce impact on the town. The green tunnel at Chipping Warden was extended by 1.5km to eliminate some more of the deep cuttings and a new 2.1km green tunnel was added at Greatworth to eliminate deep cuttings and reduce impact on the village. The tunnel at Long Itchington was extended and joined to a new green tunnel, adding 1km.

A further 11km of tunnelling was added in 2013 following a Design Refinement Review. The largest change was the decision to replace the Ruislip tunnel with a 13.5km Northolt tunnel, extending all the way from Ruislip to Old Oak Common. This change was said to cost no more than the very problematic surface option. The other change was the addition of a new 2.9km tunnel at Bromford on the Birmingham spur. This was to avoid many problems that had become apparent with the original proposal to follow an existing railway and canal which run alongside and under the M6.

During the Hybrid Bill’s examination in the House of Commons the promoter agreed to extend the Chiltern tunnel by 2.4km, on a very steep gradient, as an alternative to longer options. Part of this replaced the green tunnel at South Heath. The total length of tunnels currently stands at around 49km. (28% of the total route to Birmingham).

The total length of tunnels has increased from 20km to nearly 49km. Only around 3.3km of the 29km increase may have environmental reasons as the main reason for the change. Many of the major changes have occurred in response to technical or cost problems that have been identified since the scheme was proposed and several are described as cost neutral. More diligence during the design process would have identified far better and much cheaper options.

Changes to tunnels since HS2 was published in 2010 and reason for change  (3.3km added mainly for environmental reasons)

BT = Bored Tunnel     GT = Green Tunnel

Some tunnels require porous portal structures which may not have been allowed for in lengths shown

YearTunnel description / changesTunnel Length   kmReason.

(The reason is taken from statements in HS2 documents where available. Costs are rarely provided.)

Tech or

Env

Was

 

NowDiff

 

Cumul Total
2010Euston BT 7.47.47.4Original scheme in dense urban areaTech
2010West of Old Oak Common BT 0.30.37.7Original scheme in dense urban areaTech
2010Amersham BT 9.69.617.3Original scheme in AONBTech
2010Little Missenden BT, single bore 1.11.118.4Original scheme in AONBTech
2010Wendover GT 0.30.318.7Suggested option for original scheme in AONBEnv
2010Long Itchington BT, single bore 400kph 1.41.420.1Original scheme (route goes under hill and wood)Tech
2011Little Missenden BT extended, single bore1.11.30.220.3Extended to go under existing railwayTech
2011South Heath GT added 0.90.921.2Minimise deep cuttingTech
2011Chipping Warden GT added 1.01.022.2Minimise deep cuttings in hilly regionTech
2011Long Itchington BT shortened, twin bore1.41.0-0.421.8Unknown, may be error 
2011Burton Green GT added 0.30.322.1Reduce cutting depth and minimise impact on villageBoth
2012West of Old Oak Common BT extended0.30.80.522.6UnknownTech
2012Ruislip BT added 4.44.427.0Avoid problems with surface routeTech
2012Little Missenden BT joined to Amersham BT10.713.12.429.4Avoid problems with deep cutting and aquiferTech
2012South Heath GT extended0.91.10.229.6Needed to mitigate change to alignmentTech
2012Wendover GT extended0.31.31.030.6Minimise impact on town in AONBEnv
2012Greatworth GT added 2.12.132.7Minimise deep cuttings, reduce impactTech
2012Chipping Warden GT extended1.02.51.534.2Further reduce deep cuttingsTech
2012Long Itchington extended and GT added1.01.90.935.1Minimise various impacts, cost neutralBoth
2012Burton Green BT extended0.30.50.235.3Further minimise impact on houses & villageEnv
2013Northolt BT replaces Ruislip BT (to OOC)4.913.28.343.6Severe problems with surface route, cost neutralTech
2013Bromford BT 2.92.946.5Severe problems with surface routeTech
2016Chiltern BT extended, replaces Sth Heath GT14.216.01.848.3Avoid Mantles wood and minimise impact in AONBEnv
2016Lichfield, Underpass under A38 and canal 0.40.448.7Avoid large impact of going over A38Both

Note. Statements and figures in HS2 documents are often misleading, inconsistent or wrong.

Feb 2010      Initial scheme, Arup Route Engineering Study

Feb 2011      Prior to Consultation, Arup Route Engineering Report and contemporary plans

Jan 2012      Post consultation,  Decisions and Next Steps and contemporary plans

Nov 2013     Prior to Hybrid Bill, Design Refinement and contemporary plans

Jan 2016      Following House of Commons Hybrid Bill Committee changes and contemporary plans

Share Button
Share this...
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
5 comments on “Was tunneling added to mitigate objections? Of course not!
  1. Firstly, Grayling will not give an answer to overall costs for HS2. Second, it is instructive if you look at Oral Answers 13/01/17 by Penny. One of the questions was asked by Margaret Ferrier MP, “The Adam Smith Institute has warned that HS2 could end up costing up to £80billion. How can the Govt. assure the public that the already sky-high cost of this project are not going to spiral even further out of control?”
    Grayling “As I said this is a choice, we want not only to deliver high quality infrastructure for the future, but to do so in a way that is environmentally sensitive. That means spending money on tunnels, cuttings and things….”
    Grayling never gives a straight or, indeed, accurate answer to any question.

  2. Thankfully one rumor has been confirmed that franchises are not fit for purposes and the Yes Minister and PM and Chancellor fiction existed. PM May is not demonstrating the publics will currently as deceit is still around as the white paper suggests and as the HOL demonstrate self interests over peoples decision
    Will and can Mrs Theresa May face down the few HS2ers for better use of debt funding and tax payers expenditure.

  3. So the damaging project is poised to begin and far from the better approach and not the most critical infrastructure, facilities or services. The UK needs better, much better public administration and decision making.

    What is wrong with the democratic process to lead to bank failures and now railway failures.

  4. Tunneling was not a criteria in the route sections or in the strategy no early lidar or practical engineering produced this unmaintainable railway. Which Beeching of the future will condem it

    Clueless approach and costly folly for MAY with niave MPs and unconcerned Peers less a few to cost everyone lots and lots.

  5. It is also worth factoring in that every time the tunnels were extended, the route across Offchurch (and probably else where) was raised in height – to save money through reduced cuttings. The tunnels were ‘paid for’ by other sacrificial areas! To hide this fact, HS2 Ltd have refused to respond to FoI requests to provide the data on the length of track that will be in a cutting that is deeper than 8m (hiding train and ‘electric cables’); what length will be in a cutting between 4m and 8m (exposing ‘cables’ but not the train); or what length will be in a cutting that is less than 4m (exposing the train despite being classified by HS2 as ‘in a cutting’). It is worth remembering that the HS2 classification of ‘a cutting’ is “where the depth of excavation from existing ground down to rail level is more than 1 metre. For the purpose of longitudinal (length) measurement, the ends of such a cutting are taken at the chainage where existing ground and rail level are coincident.” Which says that even 1cm depth is included as ‘in a cutting’. Another one of the HS2 ‘alt-facts’ (to use Trump’s phrase)!

Comments are closed.

2010-2017 © STOP HS2 – The national campaign against High Speed Rail 2