Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Complex ground conditions could hike HS2 cost

HS2 High Speed Rail

Complicated piling and ground stabilisation works could add up to £750M to High Speed 2 (HS2) costs if the route goes through a salt mining area of Cheshire, a report commissioned by a group opposed to the line has warned.

The report published by consultant TerraConsult on behalf of campaign group Mid Cheshire against HS2, said that on one section where viaducts had to be built, the geological ground conditions would pose severe challenges to engineers and substantially increase construction costs.

The 20.2km long section in question runs from a tunnel portal north of Crewe to Arley Brook north east of Northwich.

The report – Ground engineering assessment HS2 in Cheshire salt district, Crewe tunnel portal to Arley Brook supplementary report for new Alignment released 15th November 2016 – says that although all of the engineering difficulties can be overcome, the section would cost significantly more per kilometre than a comparable section which passes through rural countryside with simpler ground conditions. It also questions the choice of route taken by the line.

It said that two proposed viaducts with a combined length of 1.32km could be built over the Winsford salt mine near Middlewich. Foundations for the structures would have to pass through drift deposits and the disintegrated brecciated [sedimentary rock type] bedrock to be supported on underlying “intact” rock, presenting considerable technological challenges.

“These piles will be unusually difficult to construct with consequential extremely high construction costs,” says the report. “There is limited comparable experience in the UK of piling into the difficult ground conditions with wet rockhead, particularly where the depth to competent bedrock is so deep (circa >100m) and these piles will probably be the deepest piles ever constructed onshore in the UK,” says the report.

TerraConsult put the estimated cost for “just” backfilling and stabilising mineworkings to enbable viaduct construction at £28M.

This section of the line has already been changed since initial plans were published and is included in the government’s latest preferred route announced on 15 November 2016. The proposed current alignment has been moved up to 800m to the west of the previous route, which the report says considerably increases the elevation of the track requiring longer embankments and viaducts as a result.

The report surmises that the change was made to avoid building 2.5km of the line above caverns at Holford Brinefield near Northwich and gas storage caverns to the south.

“Between 2013 and 2016 it appears that HS2 Ltd has carried out a fundamental review of the stability of the solution mined brine caverns at Holford Brinefield and the associated risks and costs of construction of the original route across this feature,” it said.

The report also says that the route now crosses part of the Winsford mine which is used for the disposal of hazardous waste, some of which it says will require relocation before the line can be built.

It concludes that due to the geotechnical complexities, the additional cost of this alignment will be £750M compared to a problem-free route in rural countryside – an estimated increase of £250M on the 2013 route.

The route is part of Phase 2b of the HS2 project covering the section above where the line splits from Crewe to Greater Manchester and from the West Midlands to Yorkshire. HS2 Ltd said that the routes was still unconfirmed and could be subject to change.

An HS2 Ltd spokesperson said: “Development of HS2 is a thorough and detailed process that draws on information gathered during the course of several years’ work.

“We are now consulting on the route through this part of Cheshire, which was revised following consultation responses to our original proposal.

“We welcome all contributions to the current consultation as part of ongoing work to develop HS2 in the North West, this will help inform the Government’s decision on the route later this year.”

Readers' comments (3)

  • Philip Alexander

    Please refer to my previous comments about the complete unreliability of the HS2 cost estimates which are wildly unrealistic and too low by far. This latest timid admission that, oh dear we seem to have under-estimated (only some) costs by £3/4 BILLION is just the project sponsors getting one of their mea culpa moments out of the way early. However, history suggests there will be many more.
    The HS2 fiasco is a classic case of getting approvals based on quite simply fraudulent cost data, knowing that the politicians won't be able to cancel it when the true costs become known because of loss of face. It has happened in government departments for years, Roads, Rail, Defence, Health, the list goes on and on. I can't believe that the Lords fell for it by passing the Bill, they are failing in their duty to give the whole project proper scrutiny.
    CANCEL IT NOW! This is nothing more than a super-vanity project gone completely mad. The country can ill afford such a grandiose project which is basically for a very few people who will use it because other people are paying their fares. The argument that it frees up capacity on other routes for freight etc is fatuous. The upgrading of just about every other mainline in the country could be achieved for less than the true cost (at least £150 BILLION - say it slowly) of HS2. I wonder how much difference that would make to the NHS? All it does is make the country even more "London-centric" since it will permit all those people living in the south east to make only daily forays into "the North" rather than moving there or actually transferring any prosperity and wealth there. If the government was genuinely committed to spreading the lop-sided prosperity in the South-east to the Midlands and the North, they might make the so-called (RIP??) Northern Powerhouse a reality by building a high-speed and freight link between Liverpool and Hull/Newcastle and omit the line to London altogether. After all, when the realities of Brexit sink in, the importance of our east and west coast ports will become ever more recognized and such a link will encourage businesses to transfer north out of the southeast like never before. Why doesn't government of whatever persuasion recognize that the south east is overcrowded, choking under its own congestion and costs of living yet insist on pumping more development into the area?
    I just cannot understand how a folly of such magnitude could have reached as far as this without someone shouting out that the emperor has no clothes on.
    Yours, in despair for the UK.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There are 1000s of miles of high speed rail routes already built throughout the world often in congested countries (Japan etc).
    Electrified rail is much to be preferred to oil powered short haul aircraft. So get on with it and ignore the NIMBYs.
    John Roe MICE

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • EWS freight railway company are sacking more than 800 train drivers because of serious reduction in freight traffic, mainly because coal-fired power stations are being closed in response to global warming fears. This goods traffic will never return so another justification for HS2 disappears.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.