Harvard Design School Version October 2008

Prof. Spiro N. Pollalis

Dr. Andreas Georgoulias

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

“Will this be the project that restores our belief that Britain can build a railway?”
the Guardian asked in May 27, 2005, referring to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
(CTRL) project. The article added that although “it is one of the biggest engineering
projects in the UK and the country’s first new train line in a century, few of us know
the real success story.”1 At the same time, the CTRL team was looking forward to the
next challenge in the infrastructure field: to transfer the significant experience gained
from CTRL in UK to other parts of the globe. A major focus was on risk management
and the need for new modes of cooperation and collaboration between all parties
involved in a project, issues that had been dealt with successfully in the CTRL project.
There were still issues to be addressed like the similarities and differences in the
relationships between designers, contractors, government officials, and the public in
each part of the world, and the identification, measurement, transfer, and handling of
risk. CTRL provided lessons for all of the above.

1
Jonathan Glancey, "Tunnel vision," The Guardian, May 27, 2005.

Dr. Andreas Georgoulias prepared this case under the supervision of Professor Spiro N. Pollalis as the basis for class discussion
rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation.

Copyright © 2006 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies, visit http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/~pollalis,
call (617) 495-9939 or write to Prof. S.N. Pollalis, Harvard Design School, 48 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. No part of
this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any
means — electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise — without the permission of Harvard Design School.

The authors would like to thank Terry Hill and Mike Glover of Arup and Brian Kenet of EFCG. The case was based on publicly
available information and interviews conducted by the authors.
CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

1. The CTRL project

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link project creates a new rail line to connect London with
the Channel Tunnel and thence with France and Paris. The integration of Europe
through rail lines has been one of the major targets and issues of every European
country. The Channel Tunnel was one of the most difficult parts of this new network,
since it faced the challenge of passing under the Channel waters. CTRL faced further
issues involved with the development of the new technology of high-speed trains and
also the construction of lines through greenfield lands and despite citizen opposition.
As of 2006 the high-speed rail network in Europe still has to be completed, with
individual countries facing various issues, risks, and challenges.

2. The Client

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link project was initiated in 1971 by the UK Government.
Since the earlier conceptions, the planning of the route was a major challenge for the
British Government and the agency delegated to the task, British Railways. British
Railways worked to establish Union Railways Limited as the project team. This team
worked for pre-construction planning services, including preliminary design,
consultation, and procurement work for the rail route. It has to be noted that the
Channel Tunnel Rail Link was one of the many privatization projects initiated by the
British Government. The term Public – Private Development (PPD) and Private
Finance Initiative (PFI) acquired their publicity through the efforts of the many teams
involved in all these projects. So, the CTRL should not be viewed as a large project in
isolation, but as a (significant) part of major change in the way a country deals with its
public infrastructure.

3. The project in 1970s and 1980s

In 1971 UK started to study the British section of a direct rail link between London and
Paris. British Railways (BR) worked in conjunction with French Railways (SNCF) to
study a tunnel under the Channel and the links from there to their capital cities.
However, public opposition and fears of negative impacts arising from faster and
more frequent trains made the UK Government abandon the plan in 1975.3 It was not
until 1986 that BR and SNCF agreed on the Channel tunnel, with no mention being
made yet of a new UK rail line. The concession contract was awarded the same year
to Trans Manche Link (later Eurotunnel) and the Channel Tunnel Act was approved
by the parliament in 1987.

3
UK and France decided to stick with the development of Concorde, which was a far easier option in political
terms.

Harvard Design School Page 2 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

Figure 1: The 1972 proposed route

Later that year BR formed a team led by Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners to perform
studies for the rail link of the Channel Tunnel to London. The study report, made
public in 1988, identified four possible routes that could provide 300km/h running
speeds. Public reaction was immediate and totally adverse.4 Protest groups,
demonstrations, and public hostility came after the rather immature publication of the
four routes with no sufficient information gathered about each option.

Figure 2: The 1988 proposed routes

4
It has been said that conclusions were based on financial, environmental, and transport issues rather than from
any community consideration.

Harvard Design School Page 3 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

In 1989 BR announced that a single route has been chosen (starting in London from
King’s Cross station) together with the details of the consultation process that would
accompany the next stages of design. The team dealing with the project was
transferred from British Rail Civil Engineering Special Projects to the direct control of
the British Railways Board and grew to 400 persons. Between March and November
1989 engineering and parliamentary drawings were developed, aiming at submitting a
private bill in November. As the year progressed, the definition of the route became
firmer but the opposition to the project was still overwhelmingly hostile. The
consultation team had to deal with over 20 local authorities, two counties, 50 parish
council and community groups, and over 50 anti-rail action groups. Even though this
period saw the emergence of a project style using a set of consultation documents
with distinctive branding, the consultation team acknowledged they had little
knowledge about the councils and groups with whom they were speaking.5

Figure 3: The 1989 proposed route

Simultaneously, BR started a competition to select a joint venture for the construction

of CTRL. The JV selected in November announced that the cost of the project had
risen due to “an extensive program of consultation which led to detailed proposals
designed to overcome the main environmental concerns.” In June 1990 the
Government transport secretary announced he was unable to accept the JV’s
proposal as it required public funds. The project went to a dead end while the
Channel Tunnel was under construction, connecting UK and France.

5
Another problem was the lack of detailed knowledge of the impact of new trains traveling at speeds higher than
those anywhere else in the UK at the time.

Harvard Design School Page 4 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

4. The project in the 1990s

CTRL had a new start when BR started studying four new route proposals. The first
was based on a revised version of its failed 1989 route. The next one was studied by
Ove Arup & Partners (Arup) and the last two were by Eurorail (containing large tunnel
parts) and London Borough of Newham. Arup's role in this stage was significant and
the firm participated as risk-taking, pioneering promoter of the CTRL route that met
community aspirations, and addressed national, domestic, freight and regeneration
benefits. Strategically the four routes were judged against two existing Government
objectives: a 50% increase in capacity between London and the Channel Tunnel, and
the ability to maximize use of the new line for domestic users. The Government
received the route options report in June 1991, and in October 1991 the transport
secretary announced:

“I am now inviting British Rail to undertake such refinement of the route proposed
by Ove Arup as is needed to safeguard it…. It is the Government’s intention that
the rail link should be taken forward by the private sector. As to the precise
financial arrangements this will be left for the Government to decide in the
circumstances of the time.”

Figure 4: The four routes proposed in 1990

The government’s decision led to a need to restructure the project group. An Arup
team joined the existing group for the preparation of the next report. The project team
was divided in two parts, the London and the country part, and the whole team
underwent a significant optimization process. The route optimization identified several
options. These were partial alterations of the whole route, focused on the most
difficult segments. The route options were to be synthesized so that they could be

Harvard Design School Page 5 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

turned into a publicly acceptable proposal, combining strategic planning and business
aspects. This process lasted two years. During the second year local authorities were
allowed to be confidentially consulted throughout the optioneering process and prior
to public consultation, putting off the complications of media scrutiny and public
anxiety. The decision to start the public consultation was announced in March 1993.
Making an innovation to the process, it was agreed that rail action groups should be
co-opted by their respective parish councils. Local authority officers were also able to
use their knowledge of the optioneering process to inform their council’s decisions.
Also, when the public was involved in the process it was decided to use an agenda to
constrain the debate to those matters the Government thought appropriable. In the
meanwhile, in 1992 BR’s project team became Union Railways Limited (URL), which
included private staff from leading engineering offices.

5. Finalizing the design

After spending over 20 years studying new route proposals and dealing with protest
groups, demonstrations, and public hostility, the UK Government finally confirmed a
preferred final scheme for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link in 1994. The selected route
is illustrated in the image that follows.

Figure 5: The final 1994 route

The Government decided to procure the project using the Build-Operate-Transfer

project delivery method. This particular method was a no-brainer considering the size
of the project and the institutional environment of the time, as it was mentioned
earlier. The effort of the British Government to promote privatization was much
depended on the success of this project, since it not only involved enormous amounts
of capital (projected cost ₤5.2 billion) but also was a “connection” of UK to the rest of

Harvard Design School Page 6 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

the European Union, and as such many organizations outside UK kept a close look to
the project. A failure to implement and complete the endeavor would not only hinder
further attempts to raise capital for similar projects, but also demeanor UK’s status in
the privatization race. The various project delivery methods and the selection for this
project are illustrated in the chart that follows.

Figure 6: Various project delivery methods and the British Government’s choice

6. The 1994 concession contract

In 1994 a competition was launched to appoint a private-sector promoter to design,

build, finance, and operate the ₤5.2 billion Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Four of the nine
consortia that applied for pre-qualification were selected to submit full proposals for
the project: Green Arrow, Eurorail, London & Continental Railways, and Union Link.
The Government also announced the key criteria for the competition: the amount of
the monetary Government contribution required and the willingness of the tenderer to
accept risk, such as contractual, operational, and financial. For this concession, the
owner did not provided guarantees similar to what we see on other projects, such as
an off-take contract, guaranteed return on equity, or securitization of cash flows. The
contract stated a concession period of 60 years, after which ownership of the project
would be returned to the UK government. There was no cap on the price the BOT
Team could charge to the users of the rail link. In many ways Channel Tunnel Rail
Link was an unconventional deal. It was over ten times larger than a conventional

Harvard Design School Page 7 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

public-private project made at the time. The concession contract also contained some
rather unusual terms for a BOT project.

First, it gave ownership of Union Railways Limited and its 100-person team, which
had taken forward the project from inception. The acquisition of the Union Railways
Limited team gave direct access to a large amount of collective knowledge and
intellectual capital. This could hardly have been transferred by means only of a data
room and due diligence. The benefits in the continuity of the project team were
substantial due to the large number of external parties with whom the project had to
interface. Each interface was capable of making a significant impact on cost and
program, with the most significant interface probably being with the domestic rail
network operator Railtrack.

The second unconventional term of the concession was that it gave ownership of
developable lands in Stratford and King’s Cross for urban regeneration and property
development, along with an interest in developable land at Ebbsfleet.

The third and most important term of the concession was that it gave ownership of
Eurostar UK Limited, the high speed train operating company for the project. Eurostar
was involved in another project running in parallel, the Channel Tunnel. Even if this
case does not intend to analyze this other project, it has to be noted that the Chunnel
(as it was referred) was having a myriad of problems. The contracting scheme was in
a continuous claims confrontation with the British and French governments and the
budgeted cost had significantly increased. Moreover, traffic forecast seemed that
were unable to be achieved, due to over-optimism and the emergence of the low-cost
airlines, such as Easy Jet.

The CTRL project, as the link from London to the Chunnel was much depended on
the success of this other project, and as such the owner decided to tie the two
projects together by offering an equity share of the high speed train operator. This
move although made CTRL the first public-private deal to include an operating
business in loss. (Some projects have involved the transfer of operating business but
invariably these were profitable and cash-generating.) In this case, as will appear
later, the turn-around risk, i.e., the need for growing revenues to reach break-even in
the Eurostar business, forced the first and radical restructuring of the project in 1998.

7. Award and BOT team selection

The BOT concession was awarded to London & Continental Railways based on their
assembled set of skills required to finance and manage construction of the railway.
London & Continental Railways was created specifically for the project from a
consortium of companies, including Arup, Bechtel, Halcrow, and Systra as design/
project manager, UBS Warburg for the project financing, and finally National Express

Harvard Design School Page 8 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

together with Virgin for the transport operation. The contractual relationships for this
BOT project are illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 7: The BOT team organization chart

Each of the companies forming the

concession had control of the
project’s equity, creating a vested
interest in the success of the
project. The percentage of equity
controlled by each company is
illustrated in the chart on the right.

Figure 8: Equity shares in the BOT team

8. BOT Project Financing

The BOT project team, even if it had control of the project’s equity, it lacked the
required funds to contribute. The required amount, about £800 million, was planned to

Harvard Design School Page 9 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

be raised from the London Stock Exchange, through an initial public offering (IPO).
This equity offering would be accompanied by substantial debt-raising to cover a
forecast peak debt requirement of around £3.2 billion. Once the project had been
completed, much of the debt would then be refinanced in the bond markets. The latter
offered longer-term and cheaper financing than the banks, but bond investors would
never invest in an incomplete project of such scale.

This particular point can be viewed as an attempt for risk transfer of the CTRL
operations to the investors in the stock market. Data is not clear about how much
equity would be offered in the IPO, but the amount to be raised was substantial.
Investors were aware at the time of this risk transfer. Peter Weston of Project & Trade
Finance journal writes on the March 1995 issue:

“[…] the key question of how much risk the private sector will assume with CTRL has
still to be addressed. On a technical level, there are likely to be few problems.[…]
Revenue levels will be hard to prove, however.”9

As many have feared, the important and overoptimistic assumption about Eurostar
breaking even, before the Central Tunnel Rail Line flotation, never happened. By
August 1997 it became apparent from the due diligence between the BOT team and
the investment banks that initial forecasts for the passenger service could not be
achieved. In fact, Eurostar’s volume of business has since proved to be significantly
below all forecasts made in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link competition, including those
made by consultants issued by the Government to potential bidders. As a result there
was a growing concern within the capital markets that Channel Tunnel Rail Link’s
traffic projections and consequent revenue stream were unrealistic, ending in a
shortfall for potential investors or debt providers. The following chart illustrates the
estimated and actual traffic in the Eurostar.

Figure 9: Planned vs actual passenger traffic in Eurostar

As it was evident, in January 1998 the project came to a halt. The BOT team, London
& Continental Railways, could not raise the necessary private-sector finance. The

9
Peter Weston, "PFI on the line" Project and Trade Finance, 143: March 1995

Harvard Design School Page 10 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

BOT team made a request for help to the British government. The BOT team had
already much in stake in the project and could not afford a failure. Charis Gresser of
Financial Times writes:

“Shareholders stand to lose a total equity investment of £100m. It may not sound like
all that much in the context of a £5.4bn project heading for the plug hole, but there is
more than just cash at stake here. It is the fear of damaged credibility and soured
relations with government that will trouble shareholders more than anything else.”10

A grant support of £1.2 billion was requested in exchange for equity share and future
cash flows. The Deputy Prime Minister refused this request, but it created an
important dilemma for the Government. It could not abandon UK’s first attempt to
build a high-speed railway, and at the same time it was not acceptable to undertake
the project in the public sector. Starting again with a new competition would have
taken around two years. The Government therefore gave some breathing space to
London & Continental Railways and directed it to meet some additional objectives.
The most important one was for London & Continental Railways to find risk-sharing
partners. If the BOT team could meet the Government’s objectives, the UK
Government would guarantee the project’s bonds before the construction had even
started.

At the time the press was full of articles portraying the extreme sensitivity of the
situation and the dynamics that have evolved, within the BOT team, but also in UK
Parliament. Juliette Jowit of Financial Times wrote:

“The government's deal to bail out the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link has been
condemned by the Commons public accounts committee, which warns it is very likely
that further "substantial" public money will be needed to keep it going. […] The report,
published today, examines the deal with London & Continental Railways. In 1996
LCR won the deal to build and run the high-speed link, which would be financed by
revenues from Eurostar passenger services. In 1998 it became apparent that fare
income would not sustain the £5bn project, and John Prescott, the deputy prime
minister, brokered a rescue package under which government would underwrite £4bn
of debt.

The cross-party committee of MPs says it "condemned the fact that the taxpayer had
been left to pick up the tab for a flawed deal that failed to transfer the risk".
Shareholders in LCR were insulated from risk in two ways, the report says .Four LCR
shareholders, Bechtel, Arup, Halcrow and Systra, also formed the Rail Link
Engineering consortium, which won the contract for the design and project
management, it says. When the project was close to collapse, the government "felt
obliged" to bail them out.

10
Gresser, Charris, "Troubles threaten the credibility of shareholders" Financial Times, January 30 1998, pg.10

Harvard Design School Page 11 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

"The shareholders were in a win-win position," said Edward Leigh, the committee's
Conservative chairman. "They were awarding themselves substantial contracts from
the company and their so-called 'risk capital' was never actually at risk. The
imperative to complete the project meant that the shareholders had to be kept sweet,
at the expense of the taxpayer."11

9. BOT Team Restructuring

In response to the UK Government’s demands, London & Continental Railways and

its banking shareholder, UBS Warburg, promoted a new structure for the project. The
risks of Eurostar’s performance where separated from the risks of railway
construction. Eurostar’s performance risk was shared under a management contract
with Inter-Capital and Regional Railways Limited, the latter being a consortium
including the two train operators still holding equity shares in London & Continental
Railways (National Express and French Railways), the Belgian rail operator SNCB as
the third Eurostar partner, and British Airways. Virgin exited the BOT team. The
contract was structured around target levels of Eurostar’s operating cash flow in each
year based on an expected target at the time of agreement. The consortium would
receive a management fee based on passenger revenue and a “gain share” of cash
flow above target. Against this, the consortium is obliged to contribute to Eurostar a
“pain share” of cash flow below target. Both the “gain and pain” share amounts were
capped, but were sufficiently large to give the consortium an incentive to maximize
performance.

The construction risk was shared with Railtrack, the domestic rail operator. Railtrack
was initially deterred from participating in the Central Tunnel Rail Link by the size of
the project. To facilitate Railtrack’s involvement, the project was phased into two
sections. The image below illustrates the separation of the route into the two
sections.

Figure 10: The two sections of the project.

11
Jowit, Juliette, "MPs attack “taxpayer’s bail-out of Channel link”" Financial Times, March 21 2002, pg.07

Harvard Design School Page 12 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

Railtrack assumed management control of the section 1 project and agreed to

purchase it following completion at a price based on the outrun cost. In return,
Railtrack would have received access charges over 50 years from Eurostar and
domestic capacity charge payments from the Government calculated to deliver a
return on the basis of a target cost. Railtrack’s exposure on section 1 was in turn
mitigated by “pain and gain” share arrangements in the project management and
construction contracts with Rail Link Engineering and the contractors. There was also
an option to take forward section 2 on a similar basis.

Arup, Bechtel, Halcrow, and Systra formed Rail Link Engineering. RLE continued to
offer design engineering and project management services, but now under a contract
with London & Continental Railways. These changes are reflected in the project
organization chart illustrated below.

Figure 11: The re-structured BOT team organization

In view of the risk transferred to private-sector participants in both Eurostar and

section 1 of the railway, the Government agreed to secure £3.75 billion of debt issued
by London & Continental Railways in form of Government-guaranteed bonds. This
securitization has provided two fundamental benefits. First, it enabled London &
Continental Railways to finance the project at a very low annual cost of debt of 4.8%,
saving up to £150 million annually over the original financing plan. Second, London &
Continental Railways could extend the maturity of its debt significantly from 25 years

Harvard Design School Page 13 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

to 30, 40, and 50 with section 2. Also the project maintained its status as
Government-supported rather than Government-funded, affecting the attitude of all
the involved parties. Now finally the contractor selection could begin.

Figure 12: “Cash waterfall” structure for the securitization of the project’s bonds

8. Partnering as an integrated solution for design and construction delivery

One of the big challenges for London & Continental Railways, as the concessionaire,
was to select the form of contractor procurement. It was decided that the construction
of Sections 1 and 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link would each be broken into 16
sub-sections, each of which to be built in parallel by different local contractors. A
panel was formed to study various contract types and the resulting implementation
and performance of major projects in terms of cost and schedule. One of the issues
that emerged in the root cause analysis of past projects was how to maximize
contractors’ profit and minimize cost. The only solution seemed to be the tying
together of both the contractor and the owner in terms of cost and profit. This could
be achieved by a target cost mechanism whereby both parties share the gain or pain
when comparing cost with price. All of these guided the panel to propose the adoption
of a partnering approach to project delivery as the option most likely to provide the
best chance of successfully completing the project. The target contract with activity
schedule was selected as the contract type, from the various contract options
illustrated in the following chart.

Harvard Design School Page 14 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

Figure 13: Various contract types and the relationship of design and construction time needed for completion

The partnering method worked as such: The project manager would invite for pre-
qualification a number of contractors. At the moment of the bid, the project manager
would have 30% design and a target price. When a contractor would be selected,
they would work together with the project manager, Rail Link Engineering, in a way
similar to design-build, taking the section of the project from 30% design completion
to 60%, within a time frame of 6 months. Once 60% design was reached, the
contractor together with the project manager would have a much better understanding
of the costs and provide a target price for construction much closer to reality. If at this
point one of the two parties would not want to continue in the actual construction, they
would break the contract, but the contractor would get paid for the design work done.
This is illustrated in the organization chart below. The complete organization chart
can be found in the Appendix.

Figure 14: The organization chart of the partnering approach

A total open book approach would be made, reinforced by a single set of documents.
Both teams would be co-located in a single set of offices, further reinforcing the

Harvard Design School Page 15 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

partnering approach. The details of the method would be facilitated through

workshops, addressing awareness first and then specific problem solving. Everything
would be supplemented by commitment to value engineering and an effective issue
resolution process. One significant change made by the project manager, Rail Link
Engineering, to the standard form of contract was to pay for the correction of defects,
as long as they were identified timely by the contractor.

Going for the contractor selection, Rail Link Engineering decided to issue indicative
quantities to save time during the bidding process. The project manager also offered
site visits and presentations to all bidders concurrently. By offering all information and
making the effort to communicate it as effectively as possible, Rail Link Engineering
gave the clearest indication about their seriousness to the partnering approach. The
individual bids were evaluated on three main elements: technical, commercial, and
partnering. Especially the partnering was assessed against the following criteria:
partnering experience; trust/ openness/ honesty; good neighbors; flexibility; business
synergy; one-team approach; commitment to alliancing; personal chemistry.

It was very critical that construction made a safe and efficient start in October 1998,
only three weeks after contract signing. Each of the 16 contractors who pre-qualified
was appointed 6 months before the actual works started. Having a 30% complete
design and a target price, Rail Link Engineering and the contractors held “early
warning” meetings on a weekly basis for a period of six months. The project cost was
analyzed in schedule/ time and risk component and broken into 6,000 items/activities.
Contractual entitlement was established before either the project manager or the
contractor determined the cost or the schedule impact of each item. A specialized risk
assessment team identified individuals within the project who were the best ones to
“own” these risks, based on expertise and experience. Interviews were held and
every “risk owner” was asked to give three prices: what would be the expected cost of
the item, what would be the cost in the best situation, and what would be the cost if
everything went wrong. All of these prices were summed, distributed, and weighted in
a computer model, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to identify worst
case scenarios and confidence levels.

This process was done in a cooperative and collaborative setting. The field
engineering and construction groups discussed all aspects in an open and honest
environment. This 6-month period resulted in a 60% complete design and a much
greater understanding of the costs. It was after this time that Rail Link Engineering
and each contractor signed the exclusivity agreement of the partnering process. It has
to be noted that none of the contractors were dismissed. This procedure proved to be
very important for the success of the project, and the error rate in Channel Tunnel
Rail Link dropped by 75%, to 25% of the normal industry rate. Another key issue was
the truly open book accounting. To ensure there was only one set of books, Rail Link
Engineering produced the monthly payment assessment based on the one set, the
logic being that if the project manager could not see the costs, it could not pay them.

Harvard Design School Page 16 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

10. Risk management

The target cost arrangements in place force all participants (client, RLE, and the
individual construction contractors) to bear some financial risk. As a consequence of
the financial exposure both to the client and Rail Link Engineering, the project has
developed and implemented an active risk management program, encompassing
both qualitative and quantitative risk management processes. The former was
specifically developed on CTRL, and essentially comprises the following elements:
• Workshops with key project participants are held to brainstorm potential risks,
their likely severity and consequences.
• The GATES risk database is populated with the potential risks.
• Risks identified are assessed for their likely severity and consequences.
• Management responsibility is allocated and risk mitigation plans and actions
developed.
• Regular reviews are held to review progress with risk mitigation plans and
actions, amend existing risks, add new risks, and update the risk database.
• Management of contractor risks is agreed between Rail Link Engineering and
the contractor and the risks formally passed to the contractor as part of pre-
construction activities.
• Progress with the closeout of project-wide risks is reviewed with Rail Link
Engineering senior management at four-weekly progress reviews. The majority
of the risk register is regularly reviewed by contract.
• Reporting of and progress with the risk management process is included in the
project four-weekly report.

An overall risk regression curve plotting total risk severity over time is included in the
report. The main benefits of the risk management process are that it documents good
management practice, increases the visibility of risks, and encourages “ownership.” It
also enables the project management team to focus effort and direct resources to
dealing with the major project risks, whether through design change, alternative
procurement or construction strategies, or insurance. The risk management process
is also reviewed by the insurance companies involved. The project team has also
implemented quantitative risk management tools, which aim to quantify the impact of
cost and schedule risks. The quantitative risk analysis (QRA) was used for setting
initial contingency and regular re-forecasting for monitoring of contingency draw-
down.

Harvard Design School Page 17 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

The risk model is capable of assessing:

• The likely spread of total project cost (analysis is also available down to contract
level),
• The level of project contingency required,
• The confidence in achieving the project completion date.
These tools are also used for scenario planning, to assess the likely impact on:
• The overall project final cost, based on possible fluctuations in the final costs of
elements of individual contracts,
• The overall project completion dates for variations in the rates of construction
progress; and cost and time implications of variations in the costs of elements of the
works and cost overruns over time.

11. Information technology as system infrastructure

The main systems tools used on the CTRL are:

Procedures: These were developed to establish general guidance for the operation
of the Rail Link Engineering project team. No individual firm had a set of procedures
adequate for the CTRL, so many are project-specific. The aim is to give consistency
of approach and ensure quality of service and product. The procedures form the basis
of the QA audits and reviews undertaken by Government representatives, the client,
and internal Rail Link Engineering auditors.

GATES: This central database, customized for use on the CTRL, stores all project
information relating to items such as the risk register, site queries, commitments, and
undertakings. Many other items are stored and the database can be interrogated by
relevant groups within Rail Link Engineering.

DNA: The document navigation assistant (DNA) is a centrally maintained package of

software containing all reference documents for the project, including all QA
procedures, instructions, and standard forms. DNA is available to all Rail Link
Engineering staff.

Data and standards: In parallel with the development of project procedures, Rail
Link Engineering has also developed a library of in-house design standards and
maintains an online library of design standards, including those of Railtrack.

Document management: The project has developed the Infoworks system for
document management. This is an extension to the Documentum system, with
additional features to both file and track receipt and issue of documentation. The
system provides common access via the project network to the client, Rail Link
Engineering, and contractors.

Harvard Design School Page 18 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

Further actions taken to ensure collaboration were to locate the project management
and contracting staff in joint offices. Information transfer was much facilitated and the
partnering culture enforced as the respective teams grew in size. Main site offices
were created as open-plan layouts where staff was co-located according to discipline.
A concern regarding the evolution of the team was that the integrity of the Rail Link
Engineering people might be compromised once they were formally within the
contractor’s organization. There was a need for control in this environment to ensure
that all members of the team maintained a balanced view of performance. A tool was
also needed to benchmark performance on what had been already achieved.18 After
evaluating many options, the Balanced Scorecard approach by Harvard Business
School professor P. Norton and Dr. R. Kaplan was selected. This choice offered the
best method of communicating strategy using measurable goals and assessing
success over time. By addressing financial and non-financial measures, and external
and internal satisfaction by means of leading metrics, a balanced view of success
was attained.

Figure 11: CTRL involved significant tunneling work

18
Already a requirement of ISO 9001:2000.

Harvard Design School Page 19 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

13. The 2000 section 2 restructuring and cost-overrun protection

During 2000, Railtrack entered into financial difficulties and submitted a revised
proposal for exercising its option and taking forward section 2.19 These proposals were
not acceptable to London & Continental Railways or to the Government as they would
have increased the cost of taking forward section 2 by £560 million and diminished
the amount of risk transfer to Railtrack. Instead, London & Continental Railways
acquired Railtrack’s share and put together a risk-transfer package for section 2 with
a cost-overrun protection program developed and arranged by Bechtel. The program
covered the first £600 million of cost overruns arising from the design, engineering,
project management, and construction of section 2 above the target cost of these
activities. This was equivalent to a 95% confidence level. Risk was shared between
London & Continental Railways, Bechtel, Rail Link Engineering, and under an
insurance program placed by a group of leading insurers.

Figure 152: Cost overrun protection and risk sharing

The cost-overrun protection was highly innovative and unprecedented in scale. It

exceeded all previous programs in the insurance market for cost overruns by an order
of magnitude. The key to the structure was that Bechtel and Rail Link Engineering
absorbed a substantial part of the first layers of cost overruns where, if they are going
to materialize, they are most likely to do so. The insurers knew that the project
managers and London & Continental Railways would suffer a significant loss before
the insurers became liable to contribute. With this protection in place, the Government
agreed to secure the remaining £1.1 billion of Government-guaranteed bonds for the
section 2 financing.

19
Railtrack soon after entered administration procedures (equivalent to filing for bankruptcy) and exited the project.

Harvard Design School Page 20 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

14. What is next?

In July 2003, the track of section 1 passed the official test and the Eurostar smashed
the UK rail speed record with 334.7 Km/h. On September 16 of the same year, the
British Prime Minister formally accepted the completion of section 1, and on the 28th
commercial service commenced. At that time, section 2 was almost 50% complete.
The track works are planned to be complete in June 2006 and then testing and
commissioning will begin. The opening of section 2 is scheduled for the third quarter
of 2007, at which time the Channel Tunnel Rail Link will become fully operational.

Essential to the successful outcome of a partnering approach in project delivery is the

client/project manager’s vision of what constitutes success. It is vital to establish a
strategy early in the project’s life for reaching the vision. At the completion of a project
like CTRL, the next steps are to evaluate the experiences. What worked and what did
not? Are they applicable for generalization, and to what degree? To what extent
should the company’s strategy be modified to incorporate lessons learned? Looking
more specifically at risks and risk management, the main questions are: When and
how should a design firm be an equity holder in a concession? Is partnering the best
method to deal with all the risks involved in PFI/ PPP, and, while it manages existing
risks, does it create new ones?

Figure 163: Section 1 of CTRL is finally complete

Harvard Design School Page 21 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

Appendix

A: Facts and figures

Distance
Channel Tunnel to St Pancras: 109km
Section 1: Channel Tunnel to Fawkham Junction: 74km
Section 2: Southfleet to St Pancras: 39km
Distance in tunnel: 26km (25% of route)
Maximum design speed: 300km/hour

Performance: Section 1 (September 2003 to 2007)

Maximum use: Up to four Eurostars/hour each way

Journey times:
Waterloo to Channel Tunnel: 55 minutes
Waterloo to Paris: 2 hours 35 minutes
Waterloo to Brussels: 2 hours 25 minutes

Performance: Whole line (2007 onwards)

Maximum use: Eight Eurostar trains/ hour each way,
Eight domestic operator trains/ hour each way,
Provision for freight traffic.

Journey times:
St Pancras to Channel Tunnel: 35 minutes
St Pancras to Paris: 2 hours 15 minutes
St Pancras to Brussels: 2 hours

Tunnels
London Tunnels (Islington to Dagenham): total 19km
Longest single London Tunnel: 10.5km (Stratford to Ripple Lane)
Thames Tunnel: 3km
North Downs Tunnel: 3.2km
Stratford Station Box: 1.1km
Ashford International Station Box: 1.7km
A Eurostar takes 38.4 seconds to go through North Downs Tunnel at 300km/hr.

Bridges and viaducts

Rail bridges: 60
Road bridges: 62
Footbridges: 30
Thurrock Viaduct: 1.3km (beneath the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge)
Medway Viaduct: 1.2km (alongside the existing and new M2 bridges, with a main span of 152m)
Ashford Viaduct: 1.4km (over Great and East Stour Rivers and Ashford-Canterbury line)
The CTRL has a total of 152 bridges.
A Eurostar takes 15 seconds to cross the Medway Viaduct at 300km/hr.

Quantities
Ballast used: 850,000 tons
General excavation: 14Mm3 (enough to fill London’s Wembley Stadium 12 times)
Structural fill: 5Mm3 (formation of embankments/increased height of embankments)
Mitigation fill: 7Mm3 (formation of bunds for landscaping and to reduce airborne noise)
Material transferred to non-CTRL uses: 1Mm3

Total budget
£5.2 billion = $9.13 billion (exchange rate as of March 21, 2006: £1 = $1.75546)
The CTRL created 8,000 new construction jobs.

Harvard Design School Page 22 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

B: The evolution of the route

The 1974 proposed routes

The 1988 proposed routes

The 1989 proposed route

The 1990 proposed routes

Harvard Design School Page 23 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

C: The complete organization chart of the BOT team after the re-structuring

Harvard Design School Page 24 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

D: Contracts Section 1

Contract 330: East Thames to the Medway Valley Contract 420: Mid-Kent: Boxley to Lenham Heath
and Waterloo connection Joint venture contractor: Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd,
Joint venture contractors: Alfred McAlpine, AMEC Civil Norwest Holst Construction Ltd
Engineering Ltd
Contract 430: Ashford
Contract 339A: Trackwork at Fawkham Junction Contractor: Skanska Construction UK Ltd
Contractor: GrantRail
Contract 434: Railway infrastructure modifications
Contract 339B: Upgrading works at Fawkham Junction Contractor: J Mowlem & Co plc
Contractor: Westinghouse Signals Ltd
Contract 440: East Kent-Ashford (town centre) to
Contract 339C: Power supply upgrade at Fawkham Cheriton
Junction Contractor: Balfour Beatty Major Projects
Contractor: Seeboard Contracting Services
Contract 550: Signalling, train control, and
Contract 340: Stratford & Ebbsfleet International communications
Stations Joint venture contractor: CCA (CSEE Transport, Corning
Construction manager: Rail Link Engineering (for 13 trade Communications Ltd, Amey Rail Ltd)
contracts)
Contract 552: Ashford resignalling
Contract 342: Highways work connecting A2 Contractor: Westinghouse Signals
to Ebbsfleet station
Joint venture contractors: Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd, Contract 556: Signalling and control, Section 2
Norwest Holst Construction Ltd Contractor: CSEE transport

Contract 350: Medway Crossing Contract 557 Communications systems, Section 2

Joint venture contractor: Eurolink JV (Beton und Monierbau Contractor: Optilan (UK) Ltd
GMBH, Morgan Est plc, Vinci Construction Grands Projets)
Contract 570: Trackwork, catenary, mechanical,
Contract 361: Pipe diversions: Thames utilities and electrical systems
Contractor: J Murphy & Sons Contractor: AMEC Spie Rail Systems Ltd

Contract 365: Ripple Lane undertrack crossing Contract CTRL M01 – Infrastructure maintenance,
Contractor: AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd Section 1
Contract 410: North Downs Tunnel Contractor: Carillion Rai
Joint venture contractor: Eurolink JV (Beton und Monierbau
GMBH, Morgan Est plc, Vinci Construction Grands
Projects)

Harvard Design School Page 25 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

E: Contracts Section 2

Contract 102: Removal of gas holders and gas governer Contract 135: Highways and utilities diversions, St Pancras
relocations Station
Contractor: Edmund Nuttall Ltd Contractor: Edmund Nuttall Ltd

Contract 103: Civil engineering works at King’s Cross Contract 137: Lifts at the international stations
Railway Lands Contractor: Fujitec UK
Joint venture contractors: Kier Construction Ltd, Edmund
Nuttall Ltd Contract 138: Escalators at the international stations
Contractor: Otis
Contract 104A: Signalling and associated
telecommunications work on eastern track slew, St Pancras Contract 220: London Portal (edge of King’s Cross Railway
Station Lands) to Stratford Box
Contractor: Westinghouse Signals Ltd Joint venture contractors: Skanska Construction UK Ltd,
Nishimatsu Construction Co Ltd
Contract 104B: Trackwork at eastern track slew, St Pancras
Station Contract 230: Stratford Box
Contractor: Motherwell Bridge Construction Contractor: Skanska Construction (UK) Ltd

Contract 104C: Telecommunications for eastern track slew, Contract 240: Stratford to Barrington Road
St Pancras Station Joint venture contractors: Costain Ltd, Skanska JV
Contractor: Tales Telecommunication Services Ltd Projects Ltd, Bachy Soletanche Ltd

Contract 104E: Midland Main Line slewing at St Pancras Contract 250: Barrington Road to Ripple Lane
Station Joint venture contractors: Edmund Nuttall Ltd, Kier
Contractor: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd Construction Ltd, Wayss & Freytag Ingenieur Bau AG

Contract 104F: Slewing of Midland Main Line to the west at Contract 302: Diversion of utilities at Thames & Kent
St Pancras station Avenues: Ford Motor Company
Contractor: Mowlem Railways Joint venture contractors: Alfred McAlpine, AMEC Civil
Engineering Ltd
Contract 104G: Signalling and associated
telecommunications for St Pancras Station Contract 303: Ford and Choats Manor Way bridges
Contractor: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd Contractor: Kier Construction Ltd

Contract 104H: Design and installation of overhead lines at Contract 310: West Thames: Ripple Lane to Thames
St Pancras Station Joint venture contractors: Morgan Est plc, Vinci
Contractor: J Mowlem & Company plc Construction Grands Projets

Contract 105 (combined): St Pancras Station Contract 320: Thames Tunnel and route civil
Joint venture contractors: Costain Ltd, O'Rourke Civil engineering works
Engineering,Bachy Soletanche Ltd, Emcor Drake & Scull Joint venture contractors: J Murphy & Sons, Hochtief
Group plc Aktiengesellschaft

Contract 124: Railway staging and interface enabling works

Contract 576: Track and overhead catenary systems,
at Kentish Town
Section 2
Contractor: Railtrack Midland Zone
Joint venture contractor: ACT JV (Alstom Transportation
Projects Ltd, Carillion Construction Ltd, Travaux du Sud-
Contract 125: Camden Depot, York Way
Ouest)
Contractor: J Mowlem & Co plc
Contract 588: Mechanical and electrical systems,
Section 2
Joint venture contractor: EMCOR Drake, Skull Group plc

Harvard Design School Page 26 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

F: Arup Group Ltd. financial data20

20
Source: Amadeus data base, http://amadeus.bvdep.com/

Harvard Design School Page 27 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

G: Equity participation and total funding requirements for CTRL

Harvard Design School Page 28 of 29

CTRL – Risk Transfer and Innovation in Project Delivery

References
www.ctrl.co.uk www.systra.com
www.arup.com www.halcrow.com
www.bechtel.com www.rail.co.uk

Batchelor, Charles. "Eurostar accelerates towards break-even: London & Continental Railways seeks to raise
L1bn in new equity in stock market flotation.” Financial Times [London edition], July 9, 1997.

Batchelor, Charles. "Rail link problems denied as costs rise by £1.4bn.” Financial Times [London edition], October
18, 1997.

Batchelor, Charles, and CharisGresser. "Warburg snubbed over LCR rescue.” Financial Times [London edition],
February 9, 1998.

Cohen, Norma. "Transport: the missing link.” Financial Times [London edition], February 7, 2003.

Glover, Mike. “The CTRL and Arup: Introduction to the history.” The Arup Journal, 1/2004

Gresser, Charis. "Troubles threaten credibility of shareholders.” Financial Times [London edition], January 30,
1998.

Plowden, Stephen. "Coming soon: The Dome on wheels." New Statesman, April 2, 2001, 25-27.

Rees, Jon. "Lines are drawn in battle for Eurostar." Marketing Week, February 9, 1996, 22.

Rich, Motoko. "Aitken-Davies to navigate rail link toward flotation.” Financial Times [London edition], October 29,
1996.

Rich, Motoko. "Removing the shadow of Eurotunnel doubt: Channel link builders hope investors are still interested
in developing a high-speed connection: [London edition]." Financial Times, November 16, 1996,

Taylor, Andrew. "Fragility in the concrete jungle: Turmoil in financial markets has forced a re-evaluation of several
projects but demand for private sector funds will remain high. Andrew Taylor reports.” Financial Times [Surveys
edition], September 23, 1997.

Weston, Peter. "PFI on the line." Project & Trade Finance, March 1, 1995, 3.

Wright, Robert. "LCR working on break-up plan for a year.” Financial Times [London 1st edition], February 20,
2006.

"Banks square up for L1.6bn Channel Tunnel mandate." Euroweek, December 6, 2002, 1,64.

"The Channel tunnel: Invasion route." The Economist, June 24, 1995, 63.

"Channel Tunnel Rail Link." Railway Gazette International, September 1, 2004, 637.

"CTRL smashes all records with $4.4bn guaranteed bond issue." Asset Finance International, March 1, 1999, 14.

"High speed sale for LCR Channel Tunnel rail ABS." Euroweek, November 10, 2003, 1,73.

"HSBC, WDR win coveted mandate for first tranche of Chunnel Link financing." Euroweek, December 18, 1998,
18.

"Rail Transport: No State Aid Involved in Channel Tunnel Link, Says Commission." European Report, May 1,
1996, 1.

"Sterling stymied by silence on L2.65bn CTRL." Euroweek, January 15, 1999, 4.

"Will Virgin nous save Eurostar?" Marketing Week, March 5, 1998, 5.

Harvard Design School Page 29 of 29