Examples Where Projects Could Have Delivered Significantly More Without Spending More Than "5%" More

[tbtc]

I'm looking for false economies - times when projects could have delivered a lot more for only a marginal (e.g. 5%) increase to the budget.

• New fleet orders that were just a couple of units too short to cover the PVR, meaning that some old trains had to be kept in service
• Electrification that would have delivered significantly more if they'd just wired one station beyond where the wires currently end, or didn't include one chord of a junction/ siding/ passing loop
• Line closures that perplexingly kept most of a branch open whilst closing the busy station at the end
• Routes built with single track sections that would now cost a lot of money to double but it'd have been a lot cheaper at the time the line was built
• "Diesel Islands" (where it'd have been cheaper in the long run to wire a branch than keep a small DMU fleet for a specific duty)
• Ordering slightly too few trains for a line meant that a service had to be diagramed at a slower speed to accommodate other trains (e.g. you might have to time a service for 75mph since you occasionally have to substitute a 150/156 in place of the 90mph 158s that ought to run most duties)

Maybe there were good reasons for the failure to go slightly further at the time (e.g. travel patterns have since changed, we had no idea of future demand, significant house building has changed the nature of a line), maybe there were pressures on costs and someone trimmed the project back to try to keep things on budget, maybe things were never feasible at the time (e.g. a rolling stock manufacturer might have only been able to deliver "x" carriages due to production line pressures, even if it'd have been a lot better if they had build "x + 5%").

Sometimes there will have been justification for things, sometimes it only becomes apparent in hindsight, but I thought a thread might come up with some examples. Please note that this isn't about the kind of "how great XC would have been if Virgin had ordered twice as many Voyagers and they'd all been eight coaches long" / "Beeching should have kept thousands of additional miles of lines open"/ "we should electrify every line in the country" suggestions, it's about very limited ways that could have delivered more (or minor cuts that delivered a disproportionate reduction in benefit). I know that it'd have been better if the 60x4 coach 185s had been built as planned (rather than scaled back to 51x3 coaches with a handful of two coach 170s sourced as a makeweight) - I'd rather that the GWML electrification had gone to all the way to Oxford/ Bristol/ Swansea (rather than stopping at Didcot/ Wooton Bassett/ Cardiff) - but these aren't just minor cuts - I'm more interested in times when projects that fell tantalisingly short of delivering as much as they could have.

Too late now to do much about these things - e.g. the production line of a particular class closes down, it'd be uneconomic to open it up for the sake of a couple of additional trains, you could build more identical ones as regulations have changed since then (e.g. emissions, accessibility) - the electrification team did the main line at the time and it'd be uneconomic to put together a new one just to wire up a short branchline - water under the bridge now - but when could a couple of quid more spent at the time have had a much bigger impact?

Examples I was thinking of:

• Lack of electrification on the Felixstowe branch. When BR wired up the GEML and associated branches, it would only have been around ten additional miles to get down the branch from Ipswich to the docks. Given how busy it is with freight nowadays, I wonder if it was considered for wiring at the time?

• The order of 333s being just enough to replace the 308s, leaving the various versions of "Northern" with a handful of 321s to run the hourly Leeds - Doncaster service (they had three 321s to run a service with a PVR of two, since the tiny 321 fleet meant they needed a spare unit, but maybe just two additional 333s would have been a much more efficient use of stock, given that a bigger fleet of 333s wouldn't have needed the 50% contingency that the 321s had)

• ECML electrification (which was an ambitious project, going all the way from London to Carstairs via York/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh) not having the budget for a few minor extensions like the spur at Morpeth that local trains reverse in (although finding money to wire up the headshunt at the eastern side of Berwick station) - in the context of the overall budget you could have included from the Metro Centre to Sunderland for only fifteen miles of wiring - maybe fans of "diversionary resilience" would want the old route at Selby to have been included?

(I've said 5% above - I appreciate that we don't always know the cost of what may appear a marginal addition to a project - I'm aware that two further 333s would have been more than 5% of the EMU fleet that ATN had - but I mention 5% to give a kind of ball park figure - this is about modest savings/increases rather than getting the crayons out and suggesting that we should have spent billions more on a project)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't have many specific examples to mind, but I can't help thinking there must be a large-ish number of stations that have been newly opened or largely rebuilt within the last 20-30 years without any significant shelter from rain etc. on the platforms, and where a small increase in budget would've provided some canopies and perhaps a few more seats, and therefore made the station a much more attractive place to wait for trains. Morecambe is perhaps an obvious example of that - brand new station with - if I recall correctly - no shelter at all when the ticket office is shut.

And talking of Morecambe - I assume it was when the station was moved and the new station opened that the double-track branch was converted essentially to two single-track independent lines. How much was saved by doing that? I'm guessing a pretty small amount for a substantial loss of flexibility in timetabling plus some confusion at Bare Lane of which train goes from which platform. Without that small saving, would it have been easier to attract more passengers by running a more clockface timetable on the line, even without running any more trains?

 

[waverley47]

Couple I can think of without revisiting too much of what's already been said.

Wiring of the City Union line in Glasgow. Both ends were wired (North Clyde in 1960 and Inverclyde in 1967) however the two mile gap was never included. No junctions, and relatively simple plain line. However, this was never really needed and the fact it hasn't been done yet speaks to how little it's actually used. There are a lot of unwired links in Glasgow that could be useful, and would have been pennies in the 60s when the rest was done, but oh well.

Similarly, electrification of seven miles of single track to Windermere probably scales at less than 5% of the whole WCML electrification budget, however this (and Morecambe although the reasons for that are far more complex). The WCML was done on far less of a shoestring budget compared to the east coast, however me may never see this link and forever be stuck with bionic duckweed. There are a lot of these odds and ends of unwired track lying around that would have been very useful from a unit allocation perspective.

There are a lot of single lead junctions lying around the country (Poppleton, Midcalder before it got done, ect) that were rationalised during lean times and are subsequently capacity problems. Most of these would have been rounding errors in terms of maintenance and renewal costs, and over the years have probably caused exponentially greater costs in delay repay ect.

Similarly, although much older, the Britannia bridge. Built as a single track along an otherwise double track main line, and compared to the costs of the entire route, probably negligible to put in the extra track.

The three track section between Nuneaton and Rugby. The rest of the Trent Valley got done in 2004? but there is still that three track section. There is an issue around the down slow having to cross the down fast here but still, would have been very cheap to just lay the forth track as far as Nuneaton.

 

[Taunton]

Reducing significant routes to single track. The onetime Western Region was a serial offender in this. Now it may be felt that it did lead to savings, but these were only theoretical. The old, simplistic way of costing the permanent way was to take the total costs of the PW department and divide them by the number of track miles, giving a cost per track mile. Reduce the number of tracks you had from two to one and you halved your track cost charges. However, the actual work required on track, and its lifespan, is more dependent on the traffic it carries, the number of million tons that pass over it. So double the number of trains using the remaining track - and you are back where you started. The cost saving was just illusory.

Single lead junctions were even worse, mainly caused by paranoia about the maintenance costs of diamond crossings. Not only are they more complex and delay prone, but in their earlier years had an inordinate number of head-on collisions, which on any reasonable risk assessment should have caused them to be suspended, but as that would be inconvenient it was all swept under the carpet. 100 years of flank protection experience thrown away.

 

[Ianno87]

The original Midland Metro route terminating at Snow Hill struck me as a huge false economy. I wonder how much potential firebox revenue was lost over the 20-odd years before it was finally extended into the City Centre.

 

[Bald Rick]

Lack of electrification on the Felixstowe branch. When BR wired up the GEML and associated branches, it would only have been around ten additional miles to get down the branch from Ipswich to the docks. Given how busy it is with freight nowadays, I wonder if it was considered for wiring at the time?

It definitely was considered, and proposed as a follow on stage. No idea why it wasn’t delivered; possibly because the wiring crews moved on to the (much more important) ECML? In snooker terminology it was ‘a bad miss’.

ECML electrification (which was an ambitious project, going all the way from London to Carstairs via York/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh) not having the budget for a few minor extensions like the spur at Morpeth that local trains reverse in (although finding money to wire up the headshunt at the eastern side of Berwick station) - in the context of the overall budget you could have included from the Metro Centre to Sunderland for only fifteen miles of wiring - maybe fans of "diversionary resilience" would want the old route at Selby to have been included?

Two things here. Firstly, MetroCentre didn’t exist when the ECML wiring was authorised in 1984.

Secondly, the ECML electrification was proposed by BR originally, to only go as far as Newcastle. That was submitted to DfT for approval in 1983. Whilst it was being considered, the new InterCity sector waded in and proposed extending the wires to Edinburgh, and buying new trains (rather than just locos). Carstairs came later still, and was a fine example of BR accounting engineering. So, arguably, they got extra money for extensions already, and probably didn’t want to push their luck.

 

[DB]

185s being 3-car when they should have been 4-car (this was, unsurprisingly, down to the DfT).

 

[Egg Centric]

Similarly, although much older, the Britannia bridge. Built as a single track along an otherwise double track main line, and compared to the costs of the entire route, probably negligible to put in the extra track.

Don't agree with this one! The original one was double track. Only after the fire was it singled, and if it was the price to pay to put the A55 up there (where there is more of a case for dualling than doubling the line tbh) it was well worth paying.

 

[RT4038]

The three track section between Nuneaton and Rugby. The rest of the Trent Valley got done in 2004? but there is still that three track section. There is an issue around the down slow having to cross the down fast here but still, would have been very cheap to just lay the forth track as far as Nuneaton.

The three track section is between Brinklow and Attleborough, with only one track in the Down direction. When the fourth track was re-instated, north from Rugby as far as Brinklow, this was on existing formation. North of Brinklow the railway is hard up against the canal, and putting in an additional track would certainly not have been cheap, as it would have required either a complete relocation of the railway, or the canal. With HS2 taking alot of the passenger traffic off the Trent Valley line, I doubt it could be financially justified now.

Don't agree with this one! The original one was double track. Only after the fire was it singled, and if it was the price to pay to put the A55 up there (where there is more of a case for dualling than doubling the line tbh) it was well worth paying.

With rail traffic to Holyhead being a shadow of its former self, and little sign that this is going to change on the future, doubling the line on the bridge would be a waste of money.

The original Midland Metro route terminating at Snow Hill struck me as a huge false economy. I wonder how much potential firebox revenue was lost over the 20-odd years before it was finally extended into the City Centre.

Has the City Centre extension cost been less than 5% of the original route?

 

[waverley47]

Don't agree with this one! The original one was double track. Only after the fire was it singled, and if it was the price to pay to put the A55 up there (where there is more of a case for dualling than doubling the line tbh) it was well worth paying.

This of course is true. I was thinking the one in Plymouth and didn't Google. The Menai bridge of course doesn't count; giving the penny pinching in the 70s, it's a miracle the Holyhead line wasn't binned anyway when it burnt down

 

[Halish Railway]

I’m surprised that Electric Freightliner trains weren’t introduced on the ECML, along with a four track railway all of the way from Woolmer Green Jn all of the way to Stoke Bank and electrifying Hare Park Junction to Leeds via Normanton and loco changes to go to terminals such as Rotherham Masborough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Marston Vale is certainly a "nuisance" DMU island that would really have better being electrified like St Albans even though loadings don't in themselves justify a 4-car EMU. Barking-Gospel Oak was another one.

With regard to the ECML, not electrifying the siding the Chathill Flyer reverses in is probably a classic - without that small omission, there would be no need for a 75mph DMU on a 125mph mainline. Though I suppose there weren't many 100mph EMUs needed around Newcastle back then, so perhaps that would have ended up as an EMU island?

 

[waverley47]

The three track section is between Brinklow and Attleborough, with only one track in the Down direction. When the fourth track was re-instated, north from Rugby as far as Brinklow, this was on existing formation. North of Brinklow the railway is hard up against the canal, and putting in an additional track would certainly not have been cheap, as it would have required either a complete relocation of the railway, or the canal. With HS2 taking alot of the passenger traffic off the Trent Valley line, I doubt it could be financially justified no

But, in terms of overall cost of the schemes as part of the West Coast Modernisation, four tracking that bit wouldn't have been too costly, not even that difficult (the other side of the formation has loads of space)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Similarly, electrification of seven miles of single track to Windermere probably scales at less than 5% of the whole WCML electrification budget, however this (and Morecambe although the reasons for that are far more complex).

I was going to say Windermere, but back then there weren't any electrified routes between Manchester and the WCML, and it's long been operated as part of the then entirely diesel NorthWest Express set of routes (Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere, of which the only electrified sections were Castlefield and the WCML stretch). This being the case I can see that the case to wire it as part of the original WCML electrification may have been weak.

OTOH, not doing it as part of the west Manchester electrifications was nuts.

 

[RT4038]

But, in terms of overall cost of the schemes as part of the West Coast Modernisation, four tracking that bit wouldn't have been too costly, not even that difficult (the other side of the formation has loads of space)

But, referring to the title of this thread, how would it have delivered 'significantly more'?

 

[Gathursty]

Would it not be a really easy job just to wire up the Belford siding for Chathill trains? I presume the siding isn't longer than a mile and that you can just add on a strut to an exisiting pier and hang the wire off that. I can't imagine needing an extra substation for the power of a limited service anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

I was going to say Windermere, but back then there weren't any electrified routes between Manchester and the WCML, and it's long been operated as part of the then entirely diesel NorthWest Express set of routes (Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere, of which the only electrified sections were Castlefield and the WCML stretch). This being the case I can see that the case to wire it as part of the original WCML electrification may have been weak.

There was no such thing as the NorthWest Express network when WCML electrification reached Oxenholme. It would have been a multiple unit shuttle just on the branch. Indeed, even in the 1980s it was a self-contained unit that ran on the branch. I guess the point is that the electrification from Weaver Junction northward in the 1970s was a bit less comprehensive than that south of there and no one planned using 304s on the branch.

 

[Halish Railway]

But, in terms of overall cost of the schemes as part of the West Coast Modernisation, four tracking that bit wouldn't have been too costly, not even that difficult (the other side of the formation has loads of space)

It’s amazing to think that in spite of the scale of the WCML modernisation, there are still an incredible number of bottlenecks caused by flat junctions, not limited to;
- Euxton Jn
- Slade Lane Jn
- Edgley Jn(s)
- Cheadle Hulme station throat
- Colwich

I could also mention places in which the linespeed could have been increased, such as;
- Carstairs to Glasgow Central, AFAIK the linespeed doesn’t exceed 95mph
- Carstairs South Jn to Carstairs East Jn which would require a new alignment.
- Runcorn to Liverpool Lime Street which seems incredibly slow.

Another obvious bottleneck elsewhere on the network is the Newark Crossover - Retford was sorted in 1965, so why didn’t Newark receive the same treatment?

 

[randyrippley]

There was no such thing as the NorthWest Express network when WCML electrification reached Oxenholme. It would have been a multiple unit shuttle just on the branch. Indeed, even in the 1980s it was a unit sent over from Newcastle (ie 143 rather than 142) that ran on the branch. I guess the point is that the electrification from Weaver Junction northward in the 1970s was a bit less comprehensive than that south of there and no one planned using 304s on the branch.

Yet the bays at Lancaster were wired in preparation for services on the Barrow and Windermere routes

 

[D6130]

An underpass at Newark would have to have been constructed in extremely wet and marshy ground hard up against the River Trent and would have been very prone to flooding.

 

[Bald Rick]

An underpass at Newark would have to have been constructed in extremely wet and marshy ground hard up against the River Trent and would have been very prone to flooding.

I think it’s fair to say that it would have been occasionally dry.

 

[Anvil1984]

Would it not be a really easy job just to wire up the Belford siding for Chathill trains? I presume the siding isn't longer than a mile and that you can just add on a strut to an exisiting pier and hang the wire off that. I can't imagine needing an extra substation for the power of a limited service anyway.

I'm pretty sure Belford is wired, the issue is only 2 trains a day go to Chathill so not really saving units, I think the turnback referred to was the one at Morpeth

Electrification ironically (or is it co-incidentally) lead to the decline of the local service north of Morpeth. Prior to 1991 when the juice was turned on the services extended north to Berwick (and indeed in past history the local stops got calls on a couple of Edinburgh services) and I believe it was 4 trains a day each way

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I thought it crazy at the time and still do many years later of only ordering 31 Class 91s

 

[Taunton]

An underpass at Newark would have to have been constructed in extremely wet and marshy ground hard up against the River Trent and would have been very prone to flooding.

Then you go up and over, just like the new A46 road right alongside. In fact the first time I went through there and the earthworks for the road embankment were half complete, I really thought it was a new rail overpass and I hadn't kept up with schemes.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought it crazy at the time and still do many years later of only ordering 31 Class 91s

That was more than enough to cover the duties envisaged for them, including the sleepers. Don’t forget that about half the class 87/2 (later becoming Class 90j were ordered for the ECML too.

 

[Carlisle]

Yet the bays at Lancaster were wired in preparation for services on the Barrow and Windermere routes

I’m not sure it was specifically in preparation for that, just as all but one of the bays at the likes of Preston & Carlisle were also electrified without any plans for their associated branches .

 

[zwk500]

But, in terms of overall cost of the schemes as part of the West Coast Modernisation, four tracking that bit wouldn't have been too costly, not even that difficult (the other side of the formation has loads of space)

Putting a 4th track down might not have cost much more, but because the Slow line is on the inside of the fast line to serve Rugby station, you'd either have needed to spend a lot more money remodelling Rugby or build a flyover between Rugby and Nuneaton. The short section of 3-track allows the Fast & Slow traffic to filter between each other quite effectively, and also functions as a dynamic loop, allowing signallers to get trains running out of order back in sequence, which would possibly be more awkward with 4 tracks depending on how many crossovers were provided and how the timetable stopping patterns were set up. In the up, Rugby has 2x 775m loops, and 3 platforms to assist in sequencing trains, so the 4-track is less of a constraint.

Maybe it wouldn't have been the £17.5m that was 5% of the TV4T budget (£350m total), but it probably wouldn't have been far off. The gains you would get from it are negligible - less than 10 paths are booked to dwell at Brinklow over an entire day.

 

[Spartacus]

This of course is true. I was thinking the one in Plymouth and didn't Google. The Menai bridge of course doesn't count; giving the penny pinching in the 70s, it's a miracle the Holyhead line wasn't binned anyway when it burnt down

The Royal Albert Bridge? I wouldn’t have thought it physically possible to double it. There’s a few similar Brunelian structures about, constructed for x number of broad gauge lines but not big enough for y number of standard gauge lines.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That was more than enough to cover the duties envisaged for them, including the sleepers. Don’t forget that about half the class 87/2 (later becoming Class 90j were ordered for the ECML too.

We will just have to disagree then. I remember regular substitutions as there were not enough 91s. Continuing service to Glasgow Central when Carstairs was electrified etc. 35 would have been a sensible order imho

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe it wouldn't have been the £17.5m that was 5% of the TV4T budget (£350m total), but it probably wouldn't have been far off. The gains you would get from it are negligible - less than 10 paths are booked to dwell at Brinklow over an entire day.

Trent Valley 4 tracking didn’t include the costs ofextendimg the 4th track to Brinklow loop, that was a separate project.

Taking the 4th line to Nuneaton was looked at, but as others have said it was absolutely not the case of ‘laying another track down’. Dozens of bridges would have had to be rebuilt. Most of the OLE gantries would have had to be removed. Significant issues with the canal. I forget how much the estimate was, but £80m feels familiar.