£17M if repairs needed to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Line

[route:oxford]

According to "The Scotsman" today, the Alloa line has deteriorated to such an extent that it now requires around £17M of improvement works.

Usual blame game between the original contractors and project specifiers.

Full story can be found here:-

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...ncardine-railway-line-needs-rebuild-1-3139554

Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line needs rebuild

ONE of Scotland’s newest railway lines will have to be largely rebuilt at a cost of up to £17 million – just five years after it was opened.

The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line is expected to be closed for periods over the next five years while “pretty extensive engineering work” is carried out, according to sources.

Network Rail has confirmed it is planning substantial *repairs to the line, which was built by other firms.

The work – costing a fifth of the original construction price – is likely to involve excavation down to the foundations in places.

Speed restrictions have been imposed on sections of the 
13-mile line because of its condition, although officials stress there are no safety risks.

Passenger trains run over half of the line, as far east as Alloa, which have reconnected the Clackmannanshire town to the rail network after a gap of 40 years. Coal trains run on to Longannet Power Station near Kincardine.

Network Rail said repairs would start at Cambus and Kennet, each side of Alloa.

The problems are understood to stem from the way the track was laid on soft ground, with the railway moving out of shape. The situation has been made worse by wetter conditions and more coal trains than anticipated.

An industry source said: “The foundations have been found not to be robust and have become prone to wear and tear. When you get to 
that point, it is effectively rebuilding. It will be quite a significant spend.”

News of the further work comes a year after Scotland on Sunday revealed that at least £1m of extra repairs have 
been carried out on the line, Scotland’s first new rail line since devolution.

Mid-Scotland and Fife *Labour MSP Dr Richard Simpson expressed anger at the need for further work.

He said: “This is an extraordinary situation – there has been a failure to future-proof the railway.”

Network Rail said it could not put a cost on the repairs, but it is understood to be around £17m...

Between Alloa, Trams and Borders - I do wonder if, going forward, Transport Scotland should subcontract these projects to TfL.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Between Alloa, Trams and Borders - I do wonder if, going forward, Transport Scotland should subcontract these projects to TfL.

Nah what they should do is run it all themselves as an independent state. Then we can laugh from the Border.

 

[edwin_m]

Between Alloa, Trams and Borders - I do wonder if, going forward, Transport Scotland should subcontract these projects to TfL.

The majority of design/construction of the tram was under TIE not TS, and according to this story the same was true of Alloa.

 

[tbtc]

Presumably its going to have to be closed for some time to electrify it anyway?

Frustrating reporting from the Scotsman, trying to work out whether the cost is to do with the poor conversion to passenger service as far as Alloa or is to do with the freight that runs beyond there to Kincardine, and any problems east of Alloa can't be blamed on the passenger service)

 

[Eagle]

If they have to close it completely for repairs, then perhaps these repairs could include building platforms at Clackmannan, Kincardine and Culross...

 

[route:oxford]

If they have to close it completely for repairs, then perhaps these repairs could include building platforms at Clackmannan, Kincardine and Culross...

If the signalling was capable...

I could see Clackmannan being a useful "stealth" extension. The primary cost being the building of a station - the operational cost being the 4-6 miles extra mileage on every diagram.

 

[onyxcrowle]

I will try again to type a post using my smarphone first post
ive just read looked awful.
Seems to autocorrect at all wrong after its typed.
Anyway
...Does anybody know the rationale for not having all those stations?.
On the orignal line didnt it end up somewhere near the route into Edinburgh?.
Makes me wonder if behind the scenes, The udea was that all along it would be more
for frieght but that would have gone down like a lead balloon if folk thought their
peace would be disturbed and gain nothing.
Seems rather than loose a planning battle they simply labled it as a passanger line and what
follwed was the sudden upturn in frieght.
I cant help but wonder if this will happen on the Borders routes.
Also perhaps they didnt future proof the electrification side of it.
So they will lower the tracks if needed to fit the wires.
And hopefully reinstate the remains of it stations. and double track

 

[WatcherZero]

The majority of design/construction of the tram was under TIE not TS, and according to this story the same was true of Alloa.

Though TS was supposed to attend monthly oversight meetings as part of the conditions the politicians set down for central funding, but they never turned up.

 

[St Rollox]

Why do the contractors always say it's nothing to do with them.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

Yes a £17 mill job five years after completion does seem fishy. Was the job based on refurbishing the line for passenger only? Big difference between a turbostar and a loaded 66.

The Scotsman article mentions the 2007 audit office investigation to the original overspend. I just downloaded, look at ‘review of major capital projects’ dated 2007.

It notes the local authority and TIE managed the project but Transport Scotland took it off them when the overspend started happening. Heres the summary of the failings:

In June 2007, because of a range of concerns about the project, Transport Scotland took a direct role in the project management on behalf of the council and commissioned a technical audit. The resulting audit report revealed project liabilities significantly greater than previously reported.
Scottish ministers announced, in June 2007, that an improved project governance structure would be put in place to take the project through to completion in March 2008 and to contain costs within £85 million. The new arrangement removed tie Ltd from the project. Transport Scotland took over day-to-day project management in August 2007 and put in place a range of measures to improve control.

Our review of the project confirmed significant shortcomings before Transport Scotland took control of the project:
Project requirement specifications were not formalised and there was no clear baseline for planning. Costs and programme timescales were based on a preliminary design which was untested against requirements.
Control and challenge were weak in the project governance. Reporting was ineffective and there was a poor level of challenge and poor management of cost by key stakeholders.
Not all of the right skills and experience were available.
Risk management was not embedded and not all significant risks were identified.
Project management and governance significantly improved after Transport Scotland’s direct involvement. Construction
was complete by March 2008 and services commenced in May 2008. Final costs for the project are dependent upon
negotiations with contractors on any outstanding claims.

Note that TIE that ballsed up the trams were involved which says a lot. St Rollox, why would it be the contractors fault? If they got drawings which they gave a price for, but the drawings were wrong or the design was wrong, why would that be the contractors fault. Contractors build what the client and designer gives them. The audit says that “specifications were not formalised” sounds like a recipe for the disaster. Sounds like it was managed badly from the start, just like the trams was.

 

[St Rollox]

Similar article in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper.
Thought i read Edinburgh City Council ??? was involved in the project.
No wonder it went belly up.
Do contractors not question any project?

Trams
Borders Rail
Alloa

Anybody see a connection.

Hardly West Coast bias, is it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes a £17 mill job five years after completion does seem fishy. Was the job based on refurbishing the line for passenger only? Big difference between a turbostar and a loaded 66.

I wonder what terms Network Rail agreed when they took over maintenance of the line? I bet there were significant disclaimers.
I seem to recall that the Scottish government (central or local) refused NR's construction quote on the basis it could do it for significantly less.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Who actually owns the line?

"Who sold you that then?" I can hear NR saying, making sure it got funding for sorting the line out.

Network Rail are in charge of constructing the Borders Railway, so maybe we will avoid such problems here.

 

[overthewater]

It also now seems someone has under estimated how busy the actually line would be, and the coal trains are above what was expected. Add in the fact the power station is on track to stay out beyond 2025, it seems it was all done on the cheap.

 

[matchmaker]

It also now seems someone has under estimated how busy the actually line would be, and the coal trains are above what was expected. Add in the fact the power station is on track to stay out beyond 2025, it seems it was all done on the cheap.

I read that and don't understand how they could have underestimated the coal trains. Longannet burns 4,500,00 tonnes of coal per year. The vast majority comes by rail and has done so for years. Someone can't do their sums!

 

[moggie]

Why do the contractors always say it's nothing to do with them.

Simple - the contractor prices then builds to a client specification. If the spec is full of holes that's the clients fault.
The client monitors the contractor through regular review of the programme and progress on site against its spec. Only when the client is content what has been specified has been delivered to the required standard does the client cough up the payments. Sometimes they don't, so it ends up in a legal bunfight in the courts a game a certain infrastructure company is quite fond of playing despite being able to run the specified train service after the work is complete. Either way, once all outstanding payments are received, court enforced of otherwise, said contractor signs the completion certificates and the client signs to accept ownership of the asset. That's the end of the contractors responsibilities. Of course, the contractor may (subject to T&C's be asked to warrant their works for faults which may develop and possibly rectify any that occur, but these will be time limited. So once the warranty time is up it definitely is no longer the contractors problem.

If NR choose to run 'more freight trains than expected' that suggests a major reason why it's falling apart now. If you use your ford Mondeo ever day and drive 300 miles a day it's going to be shagged after less than a couple of years isn't it? Same with a railway line built for emu's and the occasional freight train if that is not what it ends up actually being used for.

It's all in the specification and the holding of the contractor to that specification.

 

[overthewater]

For anyone interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-24514458

A Network Rail spokesman said: "The S-A-K line is a key route for coal trains travelling to Longannet and it has seen increasing levels of usage since it opened in 2008. That usage is also set to continue for longer with the extension of the lifetime of the power station.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

I bet there were significant disclaimers.
I seem to recall that the Scottish government (central or local) refused NR's construction quote on the basis it could do it for significantly less.

That’s an interesting point. So I would at a guess reckon the NR gave them an accurate quote for the work. The gov or TIE didn’t like it and decided it could do it for less and then hey presto you get a badly scoped project that goes over budget.

I am a civil designer and I have heard so many various anecdotes about the trams and TIEs approach from inside the industry and I don’t know what is Chinese whispers and what is real, but one thing that crops up is that the problems were with TIE and the council not really the contractor. I heard that design was not complete when it was tendered as lump sum. That is such a school boy error to make, I would guess there was pressure about deadlines probably from politicians, that’s normally a big problem. Also I heard that TIE was incredibly contractual from the off and refused any variations, new contracts like the NEC are supposed to avoid adversarial claims so I would be interest to know what contract was used. Always in the press it crops up that the service diversions went over. The service diversions ended up costing another 14 mill on about a 40mill budget, less than a 10% of the total budget so as far as I am concerned that’s a complete red herring for a £220mill overspend against a reduced scope.

I note that Edinburgh council claimed after the job was restarted that the problems were with the contract and they would be going after lawyers who prepared it. That’s a tail wagging dog solution, if the design and scope is not fit for purpose then no contract will protect you from variations and cost escalation. Also engineering contracts should be prepared by engineering contracts managers and reviewed by lawyers, not prepared by lawyers who wont understand the technical clauses. Also this idea about pushing away risk all the time by clients is false and in my experience one of the problems with cost escalation. Pushing it onto contractors is fine if the information is there for the contractors to price and prepare accurately, but time again I see poor scopes and clients who don’t really know what they want, expecting 100% cost certainty from a contractor.

I will be interested to see the results of an official investigation after the project is completed. But all the evidence suggests that local authorities and TIE were not fit to run large infrastructure projects if Alloa was their handywork as well.

"I wonder what terms Network Rail agreed when they took over maintenance of the line? I bet there were significant disclaimers"

Couldn’t agree more, if I was network rail I wouldn’t have signed to take the line off their hands without extracting some big guarantees.

Network Rail are in charge of constructing the Borders Railway, so maybe we will avoid such problems here.

On that note i believe the Scottish government tendered the borders line as a design build and operate and only got one tender return. Contractors are not placed to construct a rail line and then operate it, this has happened on roads projects before. so rather than re-tendering it they got network rail to deliver it for a agreed lump sum, a much better solution.

 

[Ships]

On that note i believe the Scottish government tendered the borders line as a design build and operate and only got one tender return. Contractors are not placed to construct a rail line and then operate it, this has happened on roads projects before. so rather than re-tendering it they got network rail to deliver it for a agreed lump sum, a much better solution.

Im pretty sure NR were originally going to deliver it for a lot less, the scottish government decided they would get a better deal going out to tender, which they didn't so go NR to deliver it and now the final price quoted it far far higher.