Technical Standard - Cross

Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001

Revision Author Checked By Approver Date Issued for/Revision details

P01 Lisa McFadden Various (eB) John Irwin 30/06/2015 Supersedes ‘Cross drainage’ DAS
(HS2‐HS2‐DR‐DAS‐000‐000001)
P02 Lisa McFadden Various (eB) John Irwin 10/03/2016 Updated to incorporate
comments
P03 Lisa McFadden Various (eB) Richard Adam 13/02/2017 Revised climate change
guidance & minor amendments
P04 Richard Various (eB) Richard Adam 07/09/2018 Skew culvert relaxation and
Engledow other minor changes
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Contents
1 Executive summary 1
2 Introduction 1
2.1 Background 1
2.2 Legislation 1
2.3 Types of watercourses 2
3 Environmental considerations 2
3.1 Environmental Statement 2
3.2 Further environmental considerations 3
4 Typical treatment options 3
4.1 Guiding principles 3
4.2 On-line crossings 4
4.3 Off-line crossings 10
4.4 Combined crossings 12
4.5 Avoiding need for separate crossing 14
5 Engineering aspects 16
5.1 Guiding principles 16
5.2 Design flows 16
5.3 Types of crossing 17
5.4 Structural design and technical approval 22
5.5 Diversions 23
6 Other considerations 25
6.1 Timing 25
6.2 Potentially interested parties 25
6.3 Health and safety 26
6.4 Maintenance and access 26
6.5 Land Ownership 27
7 Further information 28
7.1 ‘Standard owner’ 28
Appendix A – Indicative culvert details 29

Template no.:
Page ii
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

List of figures
Figure 1: Square crossing – HS2 on high embankment 5
Figure 2: Skew crossing – HS2 on high embankment 6
Figure 3: On-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment 7
Figure 4: Inverted siphon – HS2 close to existing ground level 8
Figure 5: Drop-inlet culvert – HS2 in shallow cutting 9
Figure 6: Aqueduct – HS2 in deep cutting 10
Figure 7: Off-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment 11
Figure 8: Off-line crossing – wider realignment 12
Figure 9: Combined crossing 13
Figure 10: Avoiding need for separate crossing – use of another crossing 14
Figure 11: Avoiding need for separate crossing – off-line realignment 15

List of tables
Table 1: Square crossing – HS2 on high embankment 5
Table 2: Skew crossing – HS2 on high embankment 6
Table 3: On-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment 7
Table 4: Inverted siphon – HS2 close to existing ground level 8
Table 5: Drop-inlet culvert – HS2 in shallow cutting 9
Table 6: Aqueduct – HS2 in deep cutting 10
Table 7: Off-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment 11
Table 8: Off-line crossing – wider realignment 12
Table 9: Combined crossing 13
Table 10: Avoiding need for separate crossing – use of another crossing 15
Table 11: Avoiding need for separate crossing – off-line diversion 16
Table 12: Watercourse bank treatment standard detail - order preference 24

Template no.:
Page iii
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

List of acronyms
CA Community Area
CEH Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
CFA Community Forum Area
CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association
CRT Canal & River Trust
Defra Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
EA Environment Agency
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMRs Environmental Minimum Requirements
ES Environmental Statement
FRA Flood Risk Assessment
IDB Internal Drainage Board
LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority
NR Network Rail
WFD Water Framework Directive

References
Title Reference

HS2 Technical Standards

Ecology Technical Standards HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-000017

HS2 Technical Standard – Station Public Health HS2-HS2-ME-STD-000-000007

Engineering

Technical Standard – Accommodation Accesses HS2-HS2-HW-STD-000-000004

Technical Standard – Culverts and Underpasses HS2-HS2-BR-STD-000-000005

Technical Standard – Earthworks HS2-HS2-GT-STD-000-000001

Technical Standard – Fencing HS2-HS2-CV-STD-000-000002

Technical Standard – Railway Drainage HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000003

Technical Standard – Flood Risk HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-000011

Technical Standard – Groundwater Protection HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-0000010

Technical Standard – HS2 Accesses HS2-HS2-HW-STD-000-000003

Technical Standard – HS2 Overbridges HS2-HS2-BR-STD-000-000004

Technical Standard – Materials and Durability HS2-HS2-CV-STD-000-000003

Technical Standard – Water Framework Directive HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-000012

Compliance Process

Template no.:
Page iv
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Title Reference

Technical Standard – Watercourse Diversions and HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-000014

Realignments

Technical Standard – Viaducts and Underbridges HS2-HS2-BR-STD-000-000002

Technical Standard – Fluvial Hydraulic Modelling HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-000013

HS2 standard detail drawings

Drainage standard detail drawings HS2-ARP-DR-STD-000-XXXXXX-FD, series

Phase One documents

Consents and Approvals Strategy – Permanent HS2-HS2-HW-STR-000-000001

Highway Works’

Environmental Minimum Requirements – Annex 1: LWM-HS2-EV-STA-000-000107

Code of Construction Practice

Guidance Note – Discharges to Thames Water PH1-HS2-DR-GDE-000-000001

Sewers

London to West Midlands – Environmental LWM-HS2-EV-STA-000-000124

Statement – Volume 5 – Technical Appendices -
Scope and methodology report (CT-001-000/1)

Phase 2a documents

Draft Code of Construction Practice P2A-HS2-EV-GDE-000-000009

Other HS2 documents

Draft Environmental Design Aims C250-ARP-EV-REP-000-000003

Engineering Standards Owners List HS2-HS2-EN-LST-000-000004

Guidance Note – Technical Approval of Highway HS2-HS2-BR-GDE-000-000003

Structures

HS2 Approach Document: Climate Change HS2‐HS2‐EV‐STR‐000‐000022

Allowances for Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage
Design

HS2 Project Dictionary HS2-HS2-PM-GDE-000-000002

Parliamentary plans and sections HS2-HS2-HY-PRO-000-000001

Parliamentary schedules, tables and expenses HS2-HS2-HY-PRO-000-000003

Water resources and flood risk consents and HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-000015

approvals strategy

European Union directives

Water Framework Directive Water Framework Directive

Groundwater Directive Groundwater Directive

Floods Directive Floods Directive

Habitats Directive Habitats Directive

Template no.:
Page v
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Title Reference

United Kingdom legislation

Environment Act 1995 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/25

Environmental Protection Act 1990 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/29

Land Drainage Act 1991 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/59

The Construction (Design and Management) www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/made

Regulations 2015

Water Act 2003 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/37

Water Resources Act 1991 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/57

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)

BD 2 ‘Technical Approval of Highway Structures’ BD 2

BD 94 ‘Design of Minor Structures’ BD 94

HA 106 ‘Drainage of Runoff from Natural HA 106

Catchments’

HA 107 ‘Design of Outfall and Culvert Details’ HA 107

HD 45 ‘Road Drainage and the Water Environment’ HD 45

Other Documents

C689 ‘Culvert design and operation guide’ (CIRIA) CIRIA C689

Flood Estimation Handbook (CEH) CEH ‘Flood Estimation Handbook’

Living on the Edge (EA) www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac

hment_data/file/454562/LIT_7114.pdf

Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac

drainage systems (Defra, March 2015) hment_data/file/415773/sustainable-drainage-technical-
standards.pdf

Railway Drainage Systems Manual (NR) NR/L3/CIV/005

Trash and Security Screen Guide (EA) www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac

hment_data/file/291172/scho1109brhf-e-e.pdf

Template no.:
Page vi
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Project terminology
The project terminology used within this document can be found in the ‘LWM Project
dictionary’ (HS2-HS2-PM-GDE-000-000002).

Requirements
Mandatory clauses
The following convention is used to indicate mandatory clauses.

Mandatory clauses are differentiated from the main text of this document by use of a ‘black
box’. They contain the word ‘shall’ to indicate their status as a requirement.

Departures
Any intention to not comply with a mandatory clause is considered to be a departure from
this technical standard.

It is recommended that the designer discusses any proposed departures with the ‘standard
owner’ at an early stage.

Guidance
The following convention is used to indicate guidance.

NOTE – Guidance is differentiated from the paragraph to which it relates by use of italic type
and use of the words “should” or “may”.

Template no.:
Page vii
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

1 Executive summary
1.1.1 This technical standard provides the technical requirements and associated
guidance for the design of any works to watercourses potentially affected by the
HS2 programme.
1.1.2 Requirements for main rivers with flood plains crossed by viaducts or
underbridges are provided in ‘Technical Standard – Flood Risk’, HS2-HS2-EV-STD-
000-000011. This document also provides supplementary guidance on issues such
as; fluvial geomorphology, scour and maintenance access as well as flood risk
which is also applicable to culverted crossings for smaller watercourses.
1.1.3 Adoption of this technical standard will help ensure a consistent approach to the
design of watercourse crossings across all phases.
1.1.4 This technical standard is intended for use during all stages of design (to the level
of detail required at each stage).

2 Introduction
2.1 Background
2.1.1 Water resources – both surface and groundwater – are governed by stringent
legislating and regulatory regime covering aspects such as water quality, control of
pollution, groundwater protection and flood prevention.

2.2 Legislation
2.2.1 Many aspects of the legislative regime derive from European Union (EU) directives,
including:
 Water Framework Directive
 Groundwater Directive
 Floods Directive
 Habitats Directive
2.2.2 The main United Kingdom statutes applicable to watercourses include:
 Environmental Protection Act 1990
 Land Drainage Act 1991
 Water Resources Act 1991
 Environment Act 1995
 Water Act 2003
 Flood and Water Management Act 2010

Template no.:
Page 1
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

2.2.3 However, there are also many other pieces of primary and secondary legislation
which amend, replace or extend the principal statutes listed above.
2.2.4 Additionally, there are also numerous other legislative provisions relating to
watercourses, ranging from individual Acts of Parliament for canals and river
navigations to general requirements such as the various Public Health Acts.

2.3 Types of watercourses

2.3.1 For the purposes of this technical standard, there are the following four types of
watercourse:
 Inland waterways – canals and river navigations (see below)
 Main rivers – watercourses designated as such on the Main River map held
by Defra and the Environment Agency
NOTE – Main rivers are often, but not always, larger watercourses.
 Ordinary watercourses – all other natural and manmade watercourses
(whether permanent or temporarily wet)
 Dry valleys – natural features which may give rise to surface water flows in
certain circumstances (e.g. during periods of exceptional rainfall and in the
event of melting snow)
NOTE – Aspects of this document are also applicable to other natural and
manmade bodies of water such as lakes, ponds and reservoirs.
Inland waterways
2.3.2 Inland waterways may be further sub-divided as follows:
 Navigable – generally with Canal & River Trust (CRT) being responsible for
maintenance and improvement
 Disused navigable – maintenance responsibility varies, with some having
trusts or other bodies working to make them usable again
 Managed un-navigable – maintenance responsibility varies
 Abandoned un-navigable – not maintained as such, but local authorities
have an interest in flood prevention

3 Environmental considerations
3.1 Environmental Statement
3.1.1 Environmental Impacts are assessed prior to and during the hybrid Bill stage and
are reported by means of an Environmental Statement (ES).

Template no.:
Page 2
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

3.1.2 The Environmental Statement for Phase One includes a route wide Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) and specific ones by Community Forum Area (CFA), these
identified flood risk impacts of the Proposed Scheme. A similar structure was
adopted for the Phase 2a Environmental Statement with a Flood Risk Assessment
for each Community Area (CA), and it is envisaged a similar structure will apply to
the Environmental Statement for Phase 2b.
3.1.3 Following Royal Assent, the project is obliged to comply with the Environmental
Minimum Requirements (EMRs), which amongst other things state that the project
cannot introduce any significant effects1 beyond those already addressed in the
ES. Design development for all aspects, including cross drainage, should ensure
that no new significant effects are introduced.

3.2 Further environmental considerations

3.2.1 All types of traffic that may cause a potential impact on inland waterways are
included in the Transport Assessment supporting the Environmental Statement or
the Environment Impact Assessment.

3.2.2 Any works for HS2 shall not exceed the Flood Risk Impacts identified within the ES
or EIA and the accompanying FRA.
3.2.3 All works affecting watercourses shall be carried out in conjunction with ‘Technical
Standard - Water Framework Directive Compliance Process, HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-
000012 and ‘Technical Standard – Ecology’, HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000-000017.

4 Typical treatment options

4.1 Guiding principles
4.1.1 All works – both temporary and permanent – affecting watercourses must have
adequate capacity for the design year flows in order to avoid increasing flood risk
and shall be as per the requirements in ‘Technical Standard – Flood Risk’ and
‘Technical Standard – Watercourse Diversions and Realignments’ HS2-HS2-EV-
STD-000-000014.

NOTE – Design year flow requirements are given in paragraph 5.2.1.

4.1.2 All permanent works affecting watercourses must also have adequate capacity for
the additional percentage allowance for climate change.

NOTE – Climate change allowances are given in paragraph 5.2.3.

1
Refer to the ‘London to West Midlands – Environmental Statement – Volume 5 – Technical Appendices ‐ Scope and methodology report (CT‐001‐
000/1)’ (LWM‐HS2‐EV‐STA‐000‐000124) for the definition of a significant effect. An equivalent definition has been adopted for Phase 2a and is
likely to be used for Phase 2b in due course

Template no.:
Page 3
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

4.1.3 All permanent works affecting groundwater must be designed in compliance with
the requirements set in ‘Technical Standard – Groundwater Protection’, HS2-HS2-
EV-STD-000-000010.

4.1.4 Potential adverse impacts of HS2 on watercourses and their ecology and water
quality should be ‘designed out’ where it is reasonably practicable to do so, as
should any wider effects on water resources and hydromorphology, as per the
guidance in ‘Technical Standard – Water Framework Directive Compliance Process’.

4.1.5 Where adverse impacts on watercourses are unavoidable, appropriate and

proportionate mitigation measures must be incorporated into the design and shall
be designed in compliance with ‘Technical Standard – Water Framework Directive
Compliance Process’.

4.2 On-line crossings

4.2.1 The most straightforward option for dealing with a watercourse to be crossed by
HS2 is to provide an online crossing, subject to sufficient headroom and cover
being available at the necessary structure.
4.2.2 However, it is also necessary to consider factors such as flood risk potential, base
materials, groundwater / surface water interaction, geological conditions, flow
within river beds and biodiversity when considering which treatment option may
be most appropriate at a specific location.
4.2.3 Six typical on-line crossing examples are discussed below, but the last three
options (inverted siphons, drop-inlet culverts and aqueducts) should only be
considered where unavoidable.
Square Crossings
4.2.4 Where a watercourse crosses the HS2 route perpendicularly, an on-line crossing
will often provide the optimum solution in this situation (as illustrated in Figure 1).
The potential advantages and disadvantages of this solution are summarised in
Table 1.

Template no.:
Page 4
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure 1: Square crossing – HS2 on high embankment2

Temporary Structure
realignment
required during
construction

Table 1: Square crossing – HS2 on high embankment

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Minimum length of permanent  Temporary realignment required
reinstatement at each end of the (but timing of operation can help
structure mitigate impact)
 Minimised ecological impact  Flow effects during construction

NOTE – It is unlikely that an off-line square crossing is likely to be more beneficial

than an on-line solution because the associated diversions will be permanent
rather than temporary, so no equivalent example is provided in Section 4.3.
Skew crossing
4.2.5 Where a watercourse crosses the HS2 route at an angle of less than 90 degrees, an
on-line skew crossing may be considered (as illustrated in Figure 2). The potential
advantages and disadvantages of this solution are summarised in Table 2.

2
The term high embankment is used to cover situations where a culvert or underbridge can easily be provided under the track bed (and any
associated track drainage) without requiring the use of any special measures.

Template no.:
Page 5
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure 2: Skew crossing – HS2 on high embankment

Skew
Temporary structure
realignment
required during
construction

Table 2: Skew crossing – HS2 on high embankment

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Minimum length of permanent  Greater ecological impact than a
reinstatement at each end of the square crossing
structure
 Temporary realignment required
(but timing of operation can help
mitigate impact)
 Flow effects during construction

On-line squared-up crossing

4.2.6 Where a watercourse crosses the HS2 route at a significant skew, an on-line
squared-up crossing may be considered (as illustrated in Figure 3). The potential
advantages and disadvantages of this solution are summarised in Table 3, but it
will be noted that a skew crossing (see above) – where feasible – would be
preferable in almost all respects.
NOTE – If the constraints shown in Figure 3 do not exist, an off-line squared-up
crossing is likely to be a more advantageous solution, subject to maintaining
adequate falls – see example in Section 4.3.

Template no.:
Page 6
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure 3: On-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment

Temporary Original alignment

realignment required
during construction

Constraint Structure

Constraint

Permanent realignment

Table 3: On-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Less ecological impact than a  Greater length of temporary
skew crossing realignment required than for a
skew crossing
 Temporary and permanent
realignments required
 Elongated route will result in
changed flow characteristics and
possible siltation issues (both
temporary and permanent)
 Possible erosion issues on bends
(both temporary and permanent)
 More restoration works required

HS2 close to existing ground level

4.2.7 Some lengths of the HS2 route are located close to existing ground level, and this
can make provision of an on-line structure impossible. One solution would be to
provide an inverted siphon (as illustrated in Figure 4). The potential advantages
and disadvantages of this solution are summarised in Table 4, but the latter are
likely to be so significant that this option should only be considered where
unavoidable.

Template no.:
Page 7
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure 4: Inverted siphon – HS2 close to existing ground level

Temporary
realignment
required during Inverted
construction siphon

Table 4: Inverted siphon – HS2 close to existing ground level

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 May be only feasible solution if  Significantly greater ecological
vertical alignment cannot be impact than a culverted crossing
raised
 Flow effects during construction
 Permanent flow effects from use
of siphon
 Ongoing maintenance liability to
remove sediment from sumps at
each end
Also refer to other general advantages / disadvantages for square
crossings, as appropriate

HS2 in shallow cutting

4.2.8 Some long lengths of the HS2 route are located in cutting for environmental
reasons, and a drop-inlet culvert may provide a convenient solution in some
situations (as illustrated in Figure 5). The potential advantages and disadvantages
of this solution are summarised in Table 5, but the latter are likely to be so
significant that this option should only be considered where unavoidable.

Template no.:
Page 8
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure 5: Drop-inlet culvert – HS2 in shallow cutting

Temporary Drop inlet

realignment
required during
construction

Culvert

Table 5: Drop-inlet culvert – HS2 in shallow cutting

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Less ecological impact than an  Greater length of temporary
inverted siphon realignment required than for an
inverted siphon
 Significantly easier to maintain
than an inverted siphon  Flow effects during construction
 Greater length of permanent loss
of open channel than for an
inverted siphon
 Larger area of land take required
than for an inverted siphon
Also refer to other general advantages / disadvantages for square (Table
1), skew (Table 2) and squared-up (Table 3) crossings, as appropriate

HS2 in deep cutting

4.2.9 In deep cuttings, it may be possible to construct an aqueduct over HS2 (as
illustrated in Figure 6). The potential advantages and disadvantages of this
solution are summarised in Table 6, but the latter are likely to be so significant that
this option should only be considered where unavoidable.

Template no.:
Page 9
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure 6: Aqueduct – HS2 in deep cutting

Temporary Aqueduct
realignment
required during
construction

Table 6: Aqueduct – HS2 in deep cutting

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Minimised length of ecological  Visual impact
impact
 Difficult to achieve natural-
 Shorter length of temporary functioning stream across
realignment required than for a aqueduct
drop-inlet culvert
 Flow effects during construction
 Smaller area of land take
 Cost of structure (unless
required than for a drop-inlet
combined with one being
culvert
provided for another purpose
e.g. highway or accommodation
works crossing)
Also refer to other general advantages / disadvantages for square (Table
1), skew (Table 2) and squared-up (Table 3) crossings, as appropriate

4.3 Off-line crossings

4.3.1 Another common option to consider when dealing with a watercourse to be
crossed by HS2 is to provide an off-line crossing, two typical examples of which are
discussed below.

Template no.:
Page 10
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Off-line square-up crossing

4.3.2 If the HS2 line of route crosses a watercourse at an angle less than 90 degrees, an
off-line square crossing may be appropriate (as illustrated in Figure 7). The
potential advantages and disadvantages of this solution are summarised in Table
7.
NOTE – This arrangement can be compared with the on-line squared-up crossing
shown in Section 4.2.
Figure 7: Off-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment

Original alignment

Structure
Permanent realignment

Table 7: Off-line square-up crossing – HS2 on high embankment

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Shorter length of structure  Permanent realignment required
results in less ecological impact
 Elongated route will result in
than on-line skew crossing
changed flow characteristics and
 No temporary realignment possible siltation issues
required
 Possible erosion issues on bends

Wider realignment
4.3.3 Where the HS2 route is located in cutting or close to ground level, it can often be
useful to consider a wider realignment for practical reasons (e.g. to provide
enough headroom and cover at a culvert and thus avoid the need for an inverted
siphon). An example showing a significantly off-line structure is illustrated in
Figure 8, and the potential advantages and disadvantages of this solution are
summarised in Table 8.

Template no.:
Page 11
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure 8: Off-line crossing – wider realignment

Structure

Original alignment

Offset

Permanent realignment

Table 8: Off-line crossing – wider realignment

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Less ecological impact than an  Larger area of land take required
inverted siphon than for an inverted siphon
 No Temporary realignment  Significant lengths of permanent
required realignment required (depending
on offset)
 Elongated route will result in
changed flow characteristics and
possible siltation issues
 Possible erosion issues on bends

4.4 Combined crossings

4.4.1 In some situations, it may be appropriate to provide a combined crossing as
illustrated in Figure 9. The potential advantages and disadvantages of this solution
are summarised in Table 9.

Template no.:
Page 12
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

NOTE – Providing a combined crossing is unlikely to be an appropriate solution

unless the watercourses join close to the HS2 line of route otherwise catchment
transfer or loss of base flow issues are likely to arise downstream. Careful design
will also be necessary to avoid an increase in flood risk.
Figure 9: Combined crossing

Combined
structure

Original alignments
Permanent diversions

Table 9: Combined crossing

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 Only one structure required  Loss of watercourse habitat
 Measures may be required to
deal with base flow and in-bed
flow
 Larger area of land take required
than for separate crossings
 Elongated route will result in
changed flow characteristics and
possible siltation issues
Lengths of permanent diversions required will depend on actual layout
(and may be more or less than other options)

Template no.:
Page 13
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

4.5 Avoiding need for separate crossing

4.5.1 Where local topography and other constraints permit, it may be possible to find a
suitable way of avoiding the need for a separate HS2 crossing altogether. Two
typical examples are discussed below.
NOTE – Where reasonably practicable, watercourse diversions should be kept
within their original catchments.
Use of another crossing
4.5.2 In some situations, it may be appropriate to realign a watercourse to another
crossing (such as to pass underneath a nearby viaduct or underbridge). An
example is illustrated in Figure 10, and the potential advantages and
disadvantages of this solution are summarised in Table 10.
NOTE – The ratio between extent of permanent realignment and offset should be
maximised in order to minimise the potential for detrimental impacts.
Figure 10: Avoiding need for separate crossing – use of another crossing

Viaduct or
underbridge Original alignment Extent of realignment
diversion

Offset

Permanent realignment

Template no.:
Page 14
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Table 10: Avoiding need for separate crossing – use of another crossing

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 No structure cost  Significant lengths of permanent
realignment required (depending
 Reduced ecological impact
on offset of other crossing)
 No Temporary realignment
 Elongated route will result in
required
changed flow characteristics and
 Open channel beneath structure possible siltation issues
usually preferable to culvert for
WFD purposes

Off-line realignment

4.5.3 Elsewhere, it may be appropriate to realign a watercourse locally in order to avoid

any crossings of HS2. An example is illustrated in Figure 11, and the potential
advantages and disadvantages of this solution are summarised in Table 11.
Figure 11: Avoiding need for separate crossing – off-line realignment

Permanent realignment

Original alignment New watercourse

required?

Template no.:
Page 15
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Table 11: Avoiding need for separate crossing – off-line diversion

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

 No structure cost  Shorter route will result in
changed flow characteristics and
 Reduced ecological impact on
possible erosion issues (but this
one side of HS2 line of route
can be mitigated by providing
 No Temporary realignment some sinuosity along permanent
required diversion)
 New watercourse may be
required on one side of HS2 line
of route, with potential
catchment transfer and
significant ecological impacts
Lengths of permanent diversions required will depend on actual layout
(and may be more or less than other options)

5 Engineering aspects
5.1 Guiding principles
i. All works – both temporary and permanent – affecting a watercourse should
aim to retain, and preferably enhance, the existing character, distinctiveness
and ecological value of the route wherever feasible.
ii. Therefore, as a general rule, the starting point for design of works affecting
natural watercourses should be the existing environmental and hydrological
parameters when a watercourse is diverted or realigned.
iii. All works should be designed to minimise, as far as is reasonably practicable,
future maintenance requirements.

5.2 Design flows

Design flood return period

5.2.1 The design flood return period shall be 1 in 100 years (plus allowance for climate
change), with a sensitivity test to check that water levels shall not rise to a level
closer than 1.0 metre below rail level for the 1 in 1000 year event where ballast
track is used. For slab track, the maximum depth of water in the cess during the 1
in 1000 year event shall not exceed 100 mm and along a central drainage channel
the water level shall not rise above 60 mm below top of lowest rail in the 1 in 1000
year event. Refer to ‘Technical Standard – Flood Risk’ and ‘Technical Standard –
Railway Drainage’ for further details.

Template no.:
Page 16
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Rainfall intensity

5.2.2 The standard average annual rainfall figure used for calculations shall be specific
to the area concerned, based on Met Office data for a point located no further
than 10 km from the site or calculated using the rainfall method from the CEH
‘Flood Estimation Handbook’.

Allowances for climate change

5.2.3 The allowance for climate change shall be assessed in accordance with ‘HS2
Approach Document: Climate Change Allowances for Flood Risk Assessment and
Drainage Design’, HS2‐HS2‐EV‐STR‐000‐000022.

Run-off from natural catchments

5.2.4 The run-off from natural catchments shall be calculated in accordance with the
CEH ‘Flood Estimation Handbook’ or one of other methods given in DMRB advice
note 106 ‘Drainage of Runoff from Natural Catchments’, depending on their nature
and size, and scaled for the required design storm return period.

Run-off from manmade catchments

5.2.5 The run-off from wholly or largely manmade catchments should be calculated in
accordance with an appropriate design method (e.g. using applicable DMRB
standards and advice notes), scaled for the required design storm return period.

5.2.6 The time of entry from building roofs, roads, car parks and other significant
impermeable areas within catchments shall be 5.0 minutes.

Design Life
5.2.7 Refer to Standard – Culverts and Underpasses’ HS2-HS2-BR-STD-000-000005,
‘Technical Standard – Retaining Structures’, HS2-HS2-CV-STD-000-000006 and
‘Technical Standard – Materials and Durability’, HS2-HS2-CV-STD-000-000003, for
further information on the design life of structures.
Other considerations
5.2.8 Further guidance on modelling and assessing flood flows is given in the CEH ‘Flood
Estimation Handbook’, DMRB standard HD 45 ‘Road Drainage and the Water
Environment’, DMRB advice note HA 106 ‘Drainage of Runoff from Natural
Catchments’ and the CIRIA C689 ‘Culvert design and operation guide’.

5.3 Types of crossing

NOTE – Requirements and guidance for main rivers and crossings of flood plain
areas is provided in ‘Technical Standard-Flood risk’.

Template no.:
Page 17
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Viaducts and underbridges

5.3.1 It is unlikely that an underbridge (typically less than 45 metres in length) or a
viaduct (usually 45 metres or more long) will be justified for an ordinary
watercourse crossing that does not have a 1 in 1000-year flood plain associated
with it.
5.3.2 However, it may be feasible to make use of a viaduct or underbridge required for
another reason (such as a road, public right of way or accommodation crossing) to
facilitate a local watercourse diversion and thus avoid the need for a separate
crossing.
NOTE – In the case of a shared crossing, the watercourse should preferably retain
its natural channel. However, if a local diversion is necessary, this should be
sensitively designed in order to retain – and, if reasonably practicable, enhance –
the quality of the watercourse.

5.3.3 The minimum headroom above design water level (including the additional
allowance for climate change) to the soffit of a structure shall be 600 mm in order
to minimise the risk of blockage in flood events. However, where these are to be
designed as ecological underbridges to accommodate particular species please
refer to ‘Technical Standard – Ecology’ for further details.
5.3.4 All designs shall be compliant with the requirements set in ‘Technical Standard –
Viaducts and Underbridge’HS2-HS2-BR-STD-000-000002.

NOTE – In practice, headroom requirements beneath a viaduct or underbridge are

likely to be significantly greater than minimum in most cases due to pedestrian
and/or vehicular access for maintenance or other reasons.
HS2 culverts
5.3.5 The usual treatment for many ordinary watercourse crossings will be a culvert.
These may be categorised into three main types, as follows:
 Single – a circular pipe or rectangular box, usually constructed from precast
concrete (although in-situ construction could be used for larger box
culverts) – refer to Appendix A for indicative details.
 Multiple – two or more circular pipe or rectangular box culverts installed
side-by-side.
 Drop-inlet – a circular pipe or rectangular box culvert – usually with an inlet
weir and open stepped ‘cascade’ on the upstream side to dissipate energy –
may sometimes be appropriate when the watercourse (or dry valley)
crosses HS2 in cutting or close to existing ground level.
5.3.6 Refer to drainage standard detail drawing HS2-ARP-DR-DDE-000-000005 and HS2-
ARP-DR-DDE-000-000004 for details of culverts under HS2.
5.3.7 Refer to drainage standard detail drawing HS2-ARP-DR-DDE-000-000005 and HS2-
ARP-DR-DDE-000-000006 for details of HS2 drop-inlet culverts.

Template no.:
Page 18
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

5.3.8 Where it is necessary to use a culvert, opportunities should be taken to provide

mitigation for the loss of open channel by means of sensitive design of any works
at either end in order to retain – and, if reasonably practicable, enhance – the
overall quality of the watercourse.

5.3.9 The minimum dimensions (i.e. diameter for circular pipe culverts and both internal
height and width for rectangular boxes) for culverts under HS2 and under HS2
accesses (where 10 m or more in length and excluding inverted siphons) shall be
1350 mm in order to facilitate maintenance.
5.3.10 For short culverts under HS2 accesses less than 10 m long, the minimum
dimension shall be 900 mm (excluding inverted siphons).
5.3.11 All culverts shall be designed in accordance with ‘Technical Standard – Culverts and
Underpasses’.
5.3.12 Transition details shall be designed in accordance with the requirements defined
in ‘Technical Standard – Earthworks’, HS2-HS2-GT-STD-000-000001.

NOTE – HS2 Infrastructure Directorate and the Environment Agency have a strong
preference to avoid pipe culverts. Infrastructure Directorate prefers box culverts as
they can achieve a more uniform stiffness compared to piped culverts. The
Environment Agency prefers box culverts as they help with the re-formation of a
natural bed. Use of rectangular units also enables greater capacity to be achieved
by an increase in width rather than height.

5.3.13 The maximum length of culvert without an intermediate maintenance access

chamber shall be 50 metres. Any intermediate chambers within the HS2 security
fencing shall have a locking device in order to protect unauthorised entry into
operational railway land.
5.3.14 All culverts shall have an inspection chamber or a catchpit where there is a change
in direction and/ or gradient.
5.3.15 The minimum headroom above design water level (including the additional
allowance for climate change) for culverts on ordinary watercourses shall be 300
mm in order to minimise the risk of blockage in flood events. However, increased
headroom is required for ecological culverts, refer to ‘Technical Standard – Ecology’
for further details.
5.3.16 Where required for ecological reasons, box culverts shall have a mammal ledge
above the design water level (including the additional allowance for climate
change) on at least one side, with a minimum width of 150 mm (or more where
necessary for specific mitigation purposes, see ‘Technical Standard – Ecology’). A
minimum clear width and height of 1050 mm is required for maintenance reasons
inside a culvert where mammal ledge(s) greater than 150 mm wide are used.

Template no.:
Page 19
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

5.3.17 Where required for ecological reasons, pipe culverts shall have a free-draining
mammal underpass on one side, set at adjacent ground level and with a minimum
diameter of 600 mm (or more where necessary for specific mitigation purposes).
See ‘Technical Standard – Ecology’ for further details.
5.3.18 Multiple culverts for a single watercourse crossing are more likely to become
blocked by floating debris in flood events and shall not be used where the cross-
sectional area of the channel is less than 5.0 m2.
5.3.19 The approach to the inlet of a culvert and the adjoining open drainage connections
shall be kept free from potential blockages e.g. leaf-fall, branches etc. which will
impact the functionality of the culvert.
5.3.20 Invert levels of culverts (other than drop-inlet structures) shall be 300 mm below
existing firm bed level on either side to allow for bed reinstatement and natural
sedimentation to tie in with the existing bed level both upstream and downstream
outside the culvert.

NOTE – The Environment Agency does not favour any use of multiple culverts or
trash screens due to the increased risk of blockage.
5.3.21 Headwalls should ideally have skew angles not greater than 18° from
perpendicular to the HS2 line of route for box culverts and 36° for pipe culverts to
help aid construction and minimise further maintenance issues. Refer to the
‘Water resources and flood risk consents and approvals strategy’ (HS2-HS2-EV-STD-
000-000015) for guidance about consents for headwalls
5.3.22 Where applicable, the design of headwalls and concrete aprons should consider a
standard approach that allows for build off site construction.

5.3.23 The minimum depth from rail level to top of culvert shall be 2.6 m for a skew
greater than 30 degrees and 2.0 m for square crossings and those with a skew of
30 degrees or less.

NOTE – A greater depth may be required to ensure there is sufficient depth to

allow any track drainage to cross over the top of the culvert.
5.3.24 The design of culverts should aim for the maximum possible cover depth to help
reduce hard spots in a ballasted track, without compromising the design
requirements and guidance given in this technical standard.
5.3.25 Screens at culvert headwalls are likely to become blocked by floating debris under
both normal flow and flood conditions so their use should be avoided unless
required for security purposes and a rigorous inspection and clearance regime is
to be put in place.
5.3.26 Further guidance on culvert design details is available from DMRB advice note HA
107 ‘Design of Outfall and Culvert Details’, Design of Outfall and Culvert Details,
and CIRIA C689.

Template no.:
Page 20
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Non-HS2 culverts

5.3.27 All Network Rail culverts that are outside the HS2 boundary shall be designed to
Network Rail standards unless HS2 Ltd’s requirements are impacted for the 1 in
1000 year flood event cannot be achieved, then the Network Rail culvert shall be
designed to HS2 Ltd standards (see paragraph 5.2.1)
5.3.28 Existing culverts that may be connected to a HS2 culvert shall have a full structural
survey to determine the culvert is structurally sound and to ensure that it is
suitable for retention in terms of flood risk.
5.3.29 Where a HS2 culvert forms an extension of an existing culvert a catchpit must be
located at the transition between the two culverts.
5.3.30 All other culverts that are outside the HS2 operational boundary shall be designed
to the DMRB unless HS2 Ltd’s requirements are impacted for the 1 in 1000 year
flood event cannot be achieved, then the Network Rail culvert shall be designed to
HS2 Ltd standards (see paragraph 5.2.1).

Inverted siphons
5.3.31 Where a watercourse (or dry valley) crosses HS2 in cutting or close to existing
ground level and constraints do not permit a drop-inlet culvert to be used, the only
option may be to use an inverted siphon as illustrated in Section 4.2.7.

5.3.32 Watercourse and dry valley crossings shall be designed to reduce or preferably
eliminate the number of inverted siphons and any proposal to incorporate an
inverted siphon into the design shall be treated as a departure.
5.3.33 Inverted siphons shall consist as a minimum two parallel crossings each
comprising a submerged pipe or box culvert with access chambers and sumps at
the inlet and outlet ends. Each crossing shall be sized to achieve self-cleansing
velocities and shall take into account for variations in flow at each specific location.
Each pipe or box must be capable of being taken out of service temporarily to
facilitate maintenance. The crossings shall also have different inlet levels in order
to minimise the risk of blockage. Inverted siphons must also be designed to meet
HS2 Ltd’s requirements for the 1 in 1000 year flood event (see paragraph 5.2.1).

NOTE – In some circumstances, the Environment Agency may wish to see each
crossing being capable of carrying the full design flow.

5.3.34 Where required for ecological reasons and reasonably practicable, inverted
siphons shall have a separate dry mammal underpass on one side, with a
minimum diameter of 600 mm. See ‘Ecology Technical Standards’ for further
details.
5.3.35 The minimum depth from rail level to top of an inverted siphon shall be 2.6 m for a
skew greater than 30 degrees and 2.0 m for square crossings and those with a
skew of 30 degrees or less.

Template no.:
Page 21
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

NOTE – A greater depth may be required to ensure there is sufficient depth to

allow any track drainage to cross over the top of the culvert.
5.3.36 Screens at inverted siphons are likely to become blocked by floating debris under
both normal flow and flood conditions so their use should be avoided unless
required for security purposes and a rigorous inspection and clearance regime is
to be put in place.
5.3.37 Refer to drainage standard detail drawing HS2-ARP-DR-DDE-000-000007 for details
of HS2 inverted siphons.
Aqueducts
5.3.38 In some situations, especially where it can be combined with a crossing required
for another reason (e.g. public right of way or accommodation road / track), it may
be feasible to construct an aqueduct to carry a watercourse over HS2 where this is
located in deep cutting – refer to Section 4.2.9 (Figure 6 and Table 6).

5.3.39 The minimum width of an aqueduct channel shall be 900 mm, with a 900 mm wide
walkway (with suitable edge protection) alongside in order to facilitate
maintenance (and which will also act as a mammal route).
5.3.40 Aqueducts shall be designed to have a minimum freeboard of 300 mm above the
design water level for the 1 in 1000 year flood event.
5.3.41 Invert levels of aqueducts shall be 150 mm below existing firm bed level on either
side to allow for bed reinstatement and natural sedimentation.
5.3.42 All Aqueducts shall be designed to ‘Technical Standard – Overbridges’, HS2-HS2-BR-
STD-000-000004.

5.4 Structural design and technical approval

5.4.1 Any HS2 structure carrying a watercourse with a clear span or internal diameter
greater than 0.9 m will be subject to technical approval in accordance with DMRB
standard BD 2 ‘Technical Approval of Highway Structures’.
5.4.2 All HS2 culverts shall be designed to ‘Technical Standard – Culverts and
Underpasses’.
5.4.3 Culverts less than or equal to 0.9 m in width / diameter shall be designed as minor
structures in accordance with DMRB standard BD 94 ‘Design of Minor Structures’.
5.4.4 The technical approval of Network Rail culverts shall be in accordance with
Network Rail Protective Provision Agreement.
5.4.5 The technical approval of highway culverts shall be in accordance with the
‘Consents and Approvals Strategy – Permanent Highway Works’, HS2-HS2-HW-STR-
000-000001 and the ‘Guidance Note – Technical Approval of Highway Structures’
(HS2-HS2-BR-GDE-000-000003).

Template no.:
Page 22
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

5.5 Diversions
5.5.1 Watercourse diversions shall be designed in accordance with ‘Technical Standard –
Watercourse Diversions and Realignments’.

5.5.2 For good quality watercourses, the bank treatment of any diversion should
normally retain the features of the existing channel. Elsewhere, for Water
Framework Directive purposes, the design should aim to re-naturalise the banks of
poorer natural or manmade channels where reasonably practicable to do so.
5.5.3 Refer to drainage standard detail drawing HS2-ARP-DR-DDE-000-000021 for further
detail of a typical watercourse realignment.
Gradient
5.5.4 The gradient of existing watercourse alignments should generally be retained
in order to maintain the existing flow characteristics in any diverted lengths.
5.5.5 However, as illustrated in Section 4.5, some treatment options may inevitably
result in changes to gradients but these should normally be kept to the minimum
that is reasonably practicable given the constraints of each site.
5.5.6 It should also be noted that some watercourses have been straightened and thus
shortened over time so a diversion resulting in a slackening of gradient can be
beneficial in certain locations to help restore the original flow conditions.
Cross sections
5.5.7 The cross section of any watercourse diversion should normally reflect the
dimensions and other characteristics of the existing channels (whether natural or
manmade) at each end.
5.5.8 However, this basic premise may be varied for reasons including:
 To provide flood-relief capacity, where required for mitigation reasons.
 To provide ecological habitats appropriate to the site, where required for
mitigation reasons.
 To locally improve existing poor-quality watercourses to help meet the
purposes of the Water Framework Directive.
 To minimise the risks of erosion or silting up.
 To ensure the minimum freeboard to top of bank level (see below).
Bank treatments

5.5.9 Watercourse bank treatments shall be designed in accordance with, ‘Technical

Standard - Watercourse Diversions and Realignments’.

5.5.10 Refer to drainage standard detail drawing HS2-ARP-DR-DDE-000-000016 for details

on watercourse bank treatments.

Template no.:
Page 23
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

5.5.11 For good quality watercourses, the bank treatment of any diversion should
normally retain the features of the existing channel. Elsewhere, for Water
Framework Directive purposes, the design should aim to re-naturalise the banks of
poorer natural or manmade channels where reasonably practicable to do so.
5.5.12 However, where required for mitigation reasons, bank treatments may be varied
to provide ecological habitats as appropriate to the site.
5.5.13 Similarly, bank treatments may be varied locally where necessary for erosion
protection reasons.
5.5.14 The HS2 order preference for watercourse bank treatments in listed in Table 12,
with number one being HS2 preferred solution and number six the least favoured
option.
Table 12: Watercourse bank treatment standard detail - order preference

Order Bank Type Description

preference
1 W1 Natural shape banks
2 W2 Erosion control matting
3 W3 Stone lined watercourse
4 W4 Gabion lined watercourse
5 W5 Reinforced concrete lined watercourse
6 W6 Precast interlocking blocks lined watercourse

Freeboard to top of bank level

5.5.15 Diversions should normally be designed to have a minimum freeboard of 300 mm
above the design water level (including the additional allowance for climate
change), except where wider, shallower channels with very variable water levels
are designed for ecological reasons.
5.5.16 Refer to ‘Technical Standard – Flood Risk’ for further requirements and guidance
on flood risk.
Lateral connections

5.5.17 Provision shall be made to reinstate all existing lateral connections to diverted
watercourses in an appropriate manner.
5.5.18 Outfalls from lateral connections shall be designed to avoid the risks of erosion or
silting up.

5.5.19 Further guidance on outfall design is available from DMRB advice note HA 107.
5.5.20 Refer to drainage standard detail drawing HS2-ARP-DR-DDE-000-000008 for HS2
drainage outfalls up to 0.9 m.

Template no.:
Page 24
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Boundary treatments

5.5.21 Boundary treatments such as fences, hedges and walls shall only be provided
where necessary to retain the character of the existing watercourse corridors at
each end of a diversion.
5.5.22 Fencing shall be designed in accordance with ‘Technical Standard – Fencing’, HS2-
HS2-CV-STD-000-000002.

6 Other considerations
6.1 Timing
6.1.1 The timing of the works should take into account ecological constraints, such as
fish spawning, migration and bird nesting, plus any specific protected species
present adjacent to or within the work boundary. The timing of works should also
consider when there is a high risk from flooding. For further information on
timings and work windows for specific species refer to ‘Technical Standard –
Ecology’.

6.2 Potentially interested parties

Environment Agency
6.2.1 The Environment Agency is responsible for flood prevention on main rivers and
also has permissive powers to undertake maintenance and improvement works. It
is also responsible for matters such as the control of pollution, aquifer protection
and water quality and has the power to make byelaws.
Lead Local Flood Authorities
6.2.2 The Lead Local Flood Authorities are responsible for flood prevention away from
main rivers. They may also improve ‘ordinary watercourses’ in their areas and
make byelaws.
Internal drainage boards
6.2.3 Internal drainage boards (where established) are responsible for the maintenance
and improvement of ordinary watercourses in their areas. They also have the
power to make byelaws.
Local authorities
6.2.4 Local authorities are responsible for flood prevention and have the power to
improve ordinary watercourses in their areas and make byelaws.
Canal & River Trust
6.2.5 The Canal & River Trust are responsible for the maintenance of most canals
(including feeder channels) and navigable rivers.

Template no.:
Page 25
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Private landowners
6.2.6 The owners of land along each bank (the riparian landowners) are responsible for
the maintenance of ordinary watercourses, except where internal drainage boards
are established.
6.2.7 Also refer to Section 6.4 which covers potential impacts on riparian landowners,
any holders of fishing rights and mill owners.

6.3 Health and safety

6.3.1 When designing cross drainage, health and safety risks shall be identified and
where possible eliminated. This applies to foreseeable risks occurring during
construction, operation and maintenance and eventual demolition. Where it is not
possible to eliminate risks, the general principles of prevention shall be applied as
defined by the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 and
brought to the attention of the Principal Designer. In doing so, pre-construction
information shall be taken into account, and residual risks shall be clearly recorded
on the design risk register and communicated to HS2 Ltd.
6.3.2 HS2 Ltd has committed to treat the health risks to those constructing, operating,
maintaining the HS2 railway, and those affected by it, on parity with associated
safety risks. In fulfilling the duties of the designer and in applying the principles of
prevention, equal consideration shall be given to health as to safety risks.

6.4 Maintenance and access

6.4.1 The design shall include provisions to facilitate the inspection and maintenance of
watercourse crossings.
6.4.2 The design shall eliminate, where possible the need for under water survey
inspections.
6.4.3 A suitable means of access shall be provided at watercourse crossings to allow the
ease of removing blockages.
6.4.4 All watercourse crossings of HS2 shall be designed to be taken temporarily out of
service by cutting off the inflow of water or allow for over pumping without
affecting the operation of the railway.

6.4.5 An appropriate measure e.g. increase inspection regime frequency or remote

monitoring should be adopted at high risk locations to ensure water levels do not
rise to a level closer than 1.0 m below rail level or at locations where there is a risk
of water overtopping on to the operational railway. This is to ensure the inspection
frequency can be risk prioritised. Remote condition monitoring may also be used
as a performance indicator.
6.4.6 When considering any alterations to watercourses, it is essential to establish:
a) Which party (or parties) are responsible for maintenance;
b) What access routes are currently used for maintenance; and

Template no.:
Page 26
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

c) What routes (if different) will be required for future maintenance access after
construction of HS2.

6.4.7 Access shall be designed in accordance with ‘Technical Standard – Flood Risk’ and
‘Technical Standard – HS2 Accesses’, HS2-HS2-HW-STD-000-000003 or ‘Technical
Standard – Accommodation Accesses’, HS2-HS2-HW-STD-000-000004, as
appropriate.

6.5 Land Ownership

6.5.1 Almost all watercourses are located on private land, with the rebuttable legal (‘ad
medium filum aquae’) presumption being riparian ownership extends to the centre
of the bed.
Riparian landowners
6.5.2 When considering any alterations to a watercourse, it is essential to establish who
the riparian landowners are (and who they will be in the case of a diversion).
6.5.3 The rights and responsibilities of such riparian landowners are summarised in the
Environment Agency leaflet entitled ‘Living on the Edge’.
6.5.4 These factors will need to be taken into account when designing any alterations to
existing watercourses.
Holders of fishing rights
6.5.5 Riparian landowners usually hold fishing rights along their bank(s) of a
watercourse, although they are still subject to the requirement to hold an
Environment Agency rod licence.
6.5.6 However, fishing rights may also be sold or leased by riparian landowners to other
parties (such as angling clubs), so it is essential to establish who currently holds the
fishing rights along each bank of any watercourse to be diverted.
Land referencing

6.5.7 Further enquiries shall be made of all parties potentially affected by any
watercourse diversions, even if they are located outside the hybrid Bill limits.
6.5.8 For example, mill-owners up to 32 km downstream of an impounding or
abstraction point shall be identified, because Parliamentary standing orders
require they must be notified about any such temporary or permanent impact on
watercourse flows.

Construction sites

6.5.9 Consideration shall be given at an early stage to the need for construction sites
required for any culverts, underbridges or other structures associated with
watercourse works.

Template no.:
Page 27
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

6.5.10 Any land required for construction sites for watercourse structures that lies
outside the Limits of Deviation shall be included in the Limits of Land to be
acquired or Used shown on the hybrid Bill plans.

7 Further information
7.1 ‘Standard owner’
7.1.1 The ‘standard owner’ should be consulted in the event of any other query about
the requirements and guidance given in this document – refer to the ‘Engineering
Standards Owners List’ (HS2-HS2-EN-LST-000-000004).
7.1.2 Where appropriate, the ‘standard owner’ will then consult relevant colleagues (e.g.
other standards owners where there is a technical interface and/or Railway
Operations Directorate for operational / maintenance aspects) or forward queries
to them for answer.

Template no.:
Page 28
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Appendix A – Indicative culvert details

Figure A.1: Box culvert

Figure A.2: Pipe culvert

Template no.:
Page 29
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed
Technical Standard - Cross Drainage
Document no.: HS2-HS2-DR-STD-000-000001
Revision: P04

Figure A. 1: Box culvert

Lowest rail level

Formation level

Normal minimum depth below lowest

rail level 2.6 m for a skew greater than
HS2 box culvert (1350 30° and 2.0 m for square crossings
and those with a skew of 30° or less. Minimum cover to formation level
mm minimum height /
(depends on trackform)
width for maintenance
Mammal ledge, where reasons)
required (minimum width
150 mm, but larger may
be necessary for specific Box wall thickness (varies)
mitigation purposes)

Design headroom (minimum 300 mm for ordinary

watercourses)

Adj t d freeboard of adjacent

Design Design water level with
watercourse (if any) climate change allowance

Water level for 1 in 100 year

flood event
Re-formation of
natural bank
‘Typical’ water level (varies)

Bed level of adjacent

watercourse
Allowance for natural sedimentation
(300 mm)

NOT TO SCALE

Figure A.2: Pipe culvert

Lowest rail level

Formation level

Normal minimum depth below lowest

rail level 2.6 m for a skew greater than
30° and 2.0 m for square crossings
and those with a skew of 30° or less. Minimum cover to formation level
Pipe culvert (1350 mm (depends on trackform)
minimum diameter for
Separate mammal maintenance reasons)
underpass where required
(minimum diameter 600 mm,
but larger may be necessary Pipe wall thickness (varies)
for specific mitigation
purposes)

Adjacent ground Design headroom (minimum 300 mm for ordinary

level watercourses)

Design freeboard of adjacent Design water level with

watercourse (if any) climate change allowance

Water level for 1 in 100 year

flood event

‘Typical’ water level (varies)

Bed level of adjacent

watercourse
Allowance for natural sedimentation
(300 mm)
NOT TO SCALE

Template no.:
Page 30
HS2-HS2-QY-TEM-000-000008 Uncontrolled when printed