Great Western Electrification Progress

59CosG95 said:

*buys a lot of tinfoil and fashions it into many, many hats*

Click to expand...

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

jyte said:

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

Click to expand...

They didn't have a budget to do all the work need to cost it properly at the time, so used last times number as the basis. Better than nothing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

steverailer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Cheers I was writing in hurry from memory so wasn't comprehensive list by any means.
That is very good way to waste possessions
10 -15minutes drive max is more usual near me.

jyte said:

Seriously, to quote (whoever said it earlier) that NR mostly costed their project based on historical electrification costs seems like an effin joke. :-x

Click to expand...

This was the 2009 NR view in the RUS (yet to be updated):

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.

Click to expand...

Note it quotes Atkins as the origin of the cost analysis.
While Atkins are consultants to DfT and NR, I believe they are staffed with some ex-BR/Railtrack specialists, which may be where the figures originated.
I read somewhere that one senior ex-Railtrack manager previously worked on Paddington-Heathrow and Birmingham Cross-city projects, as well as the early phases of WCRM.
Atkins also has a senior role in the GW HOPS project.

HowardGWR said:

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.

Click to expand...

The IEP costs quantified but not part of the £2.8bn infrastructure spend are related to the electrification programme not being met and all GW sets needing to become bi-mode. So actually these are direct costs of the programme being an omnishambles to the client (DfT).

In conventional building projects these would be defined as liquidated and ascertained damages which would be within the contract agreement and reflect the actual loss the client is likely to incur if the contractor fails to meet the agreed completion date.

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 Department’s 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.

Click to expand...

HowardGWR said:

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.

Click to expand...

The station rebuilding is an interdependence of clearance for electrification and by extension IEP so something that should have been factored in the original base costs and was supposedly. Whilst the report doesn't outline in any detail additional costs I'd expect that the differences between the initial assumed electrification system and the final system 1 specification will have been large component e.g. mk3 headspan electrification in stations from existing columns as per Paddington and Kings cross vs new columns for the system 1 trusses.

On the matter of piling under remaining risk NAO identify.

- Electrifying the line from Maidenhead to Cardiff by December 2018 relies on the assumption that Network Rail can significantly increase mast installation and piling rates, compared with the rates it has achieved so far.
- current target is to increase the number of piles installed each week from 62 in August 2016 to 195 piles by November 2016. The rate of mast installation is expected to increase from 55 per week to 191 per week

- Network Rail has not yet completed a quantified schedule risk analysis on the current schedule for the electrification programme. Without this, neither Network Rail nor the programme board can have confidence that the schedule is achievable.

- Further delays in the Bristol area re-signalling programme would affect the rest of the infrastructure programme, as there is no remaining float in the schedule.

- The project for electrification between London and Cardiff currently has £109 million less contingency than the amount Network Rail believes it needs to be prudent. This puts the project at greater risk of further cost increases.

- There is currently a £256 million provision for risks 19.2%.... less than when Network Rail’s board re-approved the project in April 2016 26.3%. ... some issues that were identified as risks have now occurred and more risks have been identified since then.

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.

dviner said:

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.

Click to expand...

And? I think it has become clear that the railway Union's political powers are not what they once were.

w1bbl3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

HowardGWR said:

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.

Click to expand...

From the origin of the phrase "Everything including the kitchen sink"

hwl said:

From the origin of the phrase "Everything including the kitchen sink"

Click to expand...

I'm more familiar with the phrase "Everything but the kitchen sink".

snowball said:

I'm more familiar with the phrase "Everything but the kitchen sink".

Click to expand...

Kitchen sinking is where you go one step beyond that and include absolutely everything as opposed to almost everything, there are 2 phrases.

Below is piece taken from a Rail minister's reply to some local M.Ps. re the electrification of the Hull to Selby scheme, yesterday. N.B. the part in red:

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.”

Click to expand...

How many on here expect these excuses to be used in the future with other planned electrification?
For the full piece go to:http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=138118

One difference is that in the case of Hull no previous commitment to electrify is being dropped as there never was such a commitment.

jyte said:

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

Click to expand...

And they didn't design it to the historical spec.

Apparently the last gantry went up last night between Stockley and Maidenhead. That's info from a colleague involved.

HSTEd said:

And? I think it has become clear that the railway Union's political powers are not what they once were.

Click to expand...

I believe that someone else pointed out that the press would be likely to pick it up and run with it as well.

hwl said:

Kitchen sinking is where you go one step beyond that and include absolutely everything as opposed to almost everything, there are 2 phrases.

Click to expand...

Is a kitchen sink related to a money sink?

Nippy said:

Apparently the last gantry went up last night between Stockley and Maidenhead. That's info from a colleague involved.

Click to expand...

That's great news!

Also I may have over-reacted by calling it an "effin joke". I'm just disappointed the BCR was inflated.

Nippy said:

Apparently the last gantry went up last night between Stockley and Maidenhead. That's info from a colleague involved.

Click to expand...

Thanks. By 'last gantry', do you mean that other large steelwork such as cantilevers may still be left to put up, or did you mean the last piece of large steelwork?

I shall find out today and clarify. I was told last gantry across all lines. To be honest, these are the most disruptive for us as we have a T3 on two lines and then take a line blockage between trains on the other two whilst they lift the gantry into place.

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...

Update: Just got to Maidenhead station now and I can confirm the down relief is wired through the station, must have occurred last night. That means apart from Platform 5, all the mainlines through Maidenhead are fully wired.

leomartin125 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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?

Robbies said:

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?

Click to expand...

Platform 5 is where the 387's that terminate at Maidenhead will terminate. All RTT schedules suggest use of P5 as a terminating platform from London with EMU's. P5 already has gantries, just needs wires.

leomartin125 said:

Platform 5 is where the 387's that terminate at Maidenhead will terminate.

Click to expand...

There had been a suggestion that the shuttles to Bourne End or Marlow would have a new Platform 6. Presumably that's been dropped and the 2 car 165 will have to share with the terminators from Crossrail. Unless there's been a recent rebuild, there's no connection from the Reading direction into Platform 5. Platform 4 also has access to the Branch.

There are just two twin track cantilevers to install, one at Maidenhead, and one at Taplow, then all the remaining small steel and wires can go in. After Christmas, there will be a new line running into Platform 5 from the Reading end.

All good news on Maidenhead and eastwards.
Any news on progress on Reading - Maidenhead as I haven't heard anything in while - or is that just because nothing has been happening?

MarlowDonkey said:

Platform 4 also has access to the Branch.

Click to expand...

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...

tbtc said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well all I have ever heard you say on these forums is absolute praise for bi-modes. So far from merely "accepting them as a reasonable compromise" you are seemingly unable to see any downsides! I've also not heard you say this delay/deferral/cancellation is the utter catastrophe that it is, probably because of your love of the bi-mode concept. Bi-modes is a huge part of the process that has resulted in the absolute catastrophe that is this countries electrification program, because as I have said before repeatedly the government can get away with it because of bi-modes! Without bi-modes they would need to get it done. NR are starting to get their act together now but the rest of the work has been delayed indefinitely, because they don't need to complete it.

Please show me a post where you have done anything but praise the Hitachi bi-modes for GWML, "accept bi-modes as a realistic compromise" yeah right!!!

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.

swt_passenger said:

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...

Click to expand...

The Turnback, which is being financed by Crossrail, is only cleared for class 345's. If GWR want to use it they will have to come to a financial arrangement with Crossrail and the turnback will need to be assessed for suitability for 387's. Same would apply to any other classes of rolling stock.

doa46231 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Precisely! And the GW deferral is a perfect example of that.

doa46231 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not that I seriously think this would happen, but there is nothing to stop a rolling programme of electrification meaning that eventually bi-modes could be de engined and run as pure electrics.