jyte
Member
*buys a lot of tinfoil and fashions it into many, many hats*
Can I have one?
Seriously, to quote (whoever said it earlier) that NR mostly costed their project based on historical electrification costs seems like an effin joke. :-x
*buys a lot of tinfoil and fashions it into many, many hats*
Can I have one?
Seriously, to quote (whoever said it earlier) that NR mostly costed their project based on historical electrification costs seems like an effin joke. :-x
Also to add to this lack of access points for RRV's for the conventional infill. An hours travel for the RRV's is not uncommon from the access point to the worksite.
Seriously, to quote (whoever said it earlier) that NR mostly costed their project based on historical electrification costs seems like an effin joke. :-x
Electrification costs are usually summarised as a rate per single track kilometre and the report “T633: Study on Further Electrification on the UK Railway” undertaken for the Department for Transport (DfT) by Atkins in 2007 quoted a range of rates from £500k to £650k.
This figure was used as a starting point for the RUS evaluations and further developed by comparison with current cost estimates, proof of concept studies into new delivery techniques and outline evaluation of route specific features.
This additional work has shown some opportunity for reducing the costs which could be realised during the detailed development of specific routes.
Thanks for the replies and also the link to the summary.
I had not realised that the increase in estimate includes station rebuilding and other projects, not purely to do with electrification. It doesn't seem too bad an overshoot if one took all those costs into account. Electrification is different to modernisation. ... I didn't realise the costs included new IEP stock; that seems most inappropriate, although perhaps with those, the costs have not exceeded estimates.
NAO said:4.9 Under the terms of its contract with the train operating company, Great Western Railway, the Department is responsible for any costs caused by delays to electrification.
.... the Department agreed, in its March 2015 franchise award to Great Western Railway, that electrification and new trains would result in electrification being ready in December 2016 (London to Newbury), June 2017 (London to Bristol Parkway) and May 2018 (London to Cardiff). Network Rail will now not meet these dates.
4.11 As a result of delays to electrification, the Department has negotiated a variation to its contract with Agility Trains for the new Intercity Express Programme trains....
Under the original contract Agility was due to deliver 36 bi-modes and 21 electric trains. .... HM Treasury approved the Departments request for the 21 trains previously specified as electric to now be procured as bi-modes. If it had not done this, old trains would have continued to operate services. The Department would have had to pay £400,000 per day to Agility Trains to lease new trains that could not be used until the overhead electrification was complete. We estimate that this would have cost the Department about £400 million over the three years that it took to complete electrification.
I still have a big problem with the piling costs. Projects (I am a retired project leader) normally get exceeded when mission creep takes place, rather than operational details of implementation being altered.
I'll have to do some reading I think.
I think you're wrong there. If it's law, then it's supposed to be adhered to - even by (and probably, especially by) the state.
I'm not an expert in the involved fields, but I believe that if it was decided that railway construction work was to become exempt from complying with various strictures of the H&SAW Act (or whatever it's called now), then an amendment to the act would need to go through the whole enabling process, with all it's bells, whistles, and debates.
Unions might have something to say about it.
Honestly I expect another round of bad news in the next couple of years as risks become actuals as it doesn't appear the current forecast price is a kitchen sink no reasonable risk all in price.
I had a problem reading this sentence. Would the following re-write be correct in what you are intending?
Honestly, I expect another round of bad news in the next couple of years, as risks become actuals, as it doesn't appear that the current forecast price is a "kitchen sink" "no-reasonable-risk" "all-in" price.
If so, I am unfamiliar with the expression "kitchen sink" in this context. Could you explain please? Thanks for the replies, by the way.
From the origin of the phrase "Everything including the kitchen sink"
Kitchen sinking is where you go one step beyond that and include absolutely everything as opposed to almost everything, there are 2 phrases.I'm more familiar with the phrase "Everything but the kitchen sink".
In his letter to MPs, Mr Maynard points to First Hull Trains’s decision to spend £60m on ‘bi-mode’ trains which can operate on both diesel and electric power. Mr Maynard said the Azuma trains soon to be brought into service by Virgin Trains would cut journey times to London while Arrival Rail North will introduce “new or refurbished trains” on services connecting Hull to Doncaster and Sheffield. The minister said the promised loan would have been repayable by the Government when the upgrade was complete, making the project “fully publicly funded”. Passengers in areas where electrification work had gone ahead had experienced “months of either complete line closure or mid-week nights and weekend closure”. “He added: “Given the number of passenger benefits already being delivered without electrification, there is almost no further benefit to justify further publicly funded investment and the disruption electrification would bring.”
Can I have one?
Seriously, to quote (whoever said it earlier) that NR mostly costed their project based on historical electrification costs seems like an effin joke. :-x
And? I think it has become clear that the railway Union's political powers are not what they once were.
Kitchen sinking is where you go one step beyond that and include absolutely everything as opposed to almost everything, there are 2 phrases.
Apparently the last gantry went up last night between Stockley and Maidenhead. That's info from a colleague involved.
Apparently the last gantry went up last night between Stockley and Maidenhead. That's info from a colleague involved.
Well I can confirm that we have wires on all lines apart from the down relief now at Maidenhead, which makes a big difference to how it used to be. Also Platform 5 remains unelectrified but no doubt that will follow once the mains/reliefs are completed. Maybe I'll turn up one morning heading to work at Maidenhead and find the down relief wired through the platform too...
Since electrification to Bourne End and Marlow is deferred at the moment, is it worth electrifying platform 5 at Maidenhead or do trains for London stop in this platform from time to time?
Platform 5 is where the 387's that terminate at Maidenhead will terminate.
Platform 4 also has access to the Branch.
You're one tactic here seems to be painting people prepared to accept bi-modes as a realistic compromise as zealots unable to see any downsides.
I think that is supposed to be coming out during the Christmas/New Year alterations.
Regarding reversals, there is a 250m turnback being put in between the up and down relief west of the station, the up relief gets slewed over to make room during the Christmas period, so once that is finished it may well become the normal (logical?) location for the initial 387 services to reverse, as it will remove any need for crossing conflicts...
As someone on another thread has said, bi-modes are the worst of all worlds.
They're not as quick as straight electrics in electric mode, they're not as quick as pure diesels in diesel mode, they cost more to build and maintain than conventional trains, they will cost more in track access because of their heavier weight and wear and tear on the track, and they're more complicated to maintain.
Pollution from diesels is becoming ever more of an issue and yet we are going to be stuck with these things for the next 30 years.
Add to that they've given the Govt. a perfect excuse to abandon a rolling programme of electrification and one can say they're going to be disastrous for the UK.
As someone on another thread has said, bi-modes are the worst of all worlds.
They're not as quick as straight electrics in electric mode, they're not as quick as pure diesels in diesel mode, they cost more to build and maintain than conventional trains, they will cost more in track access because of their heavier weight and wear and tear on the track, and they're more complicated to maintain.
Pollution from diesels is becoming ever more of an issue and yet we are going to be stuck with these things for the next 30 years.
Add to that they've given the Govt. a perfect excuse to abandon a rolling programme of electrification and one can say they're going to be disastrous for the UK.