Are 'disruptors' possible in rail infrastructure?

[Meerkat]

Triggered by reading about EWR a while back. The government set it up as a separate company to do things differently and better, because Network Rail projects were always over budget and late......however it doesn't really seem to have done anything different, nor better.
IMO this is because it was top down - the client (DfT) presumably went to the same list of trusted consultants and contractors and picked the ones with the relevant buzzwords in their slide decks.
Disruption comes from below - individuals who are inside the bubble and understand the bubble and its problems come up with a better way, then find someone to finance their ideas, and then go to the client. Examples would be the 'new' freight companies and OAs with their new methods of operation and new staff T&Cs, or Rock Rail in the ROSCO field.

Is this possible for building new railway and/or major upgrades, or are the financial numbers just too big and the projects too risky due to length and unknowns? You must have to spend an awful lot of money before you get even a vaguely reliable cost estimate. Evergreen was the nearest I can think of but aside from the funding from future track fees it ended up pretty conventional AIUI. The Siemens partial electrification seems to fit the parameters but whether it is anything but a risky PFI with all their problems depends on how much construction risk Siemens are prepared to take.

Any ideas or do we just have to shrug and accept that this is the way its always been done and always will be (or wont be at all because its too expensive)

 

[Magdalia]

Is this possible for building new railway and/or major upgrades, or are the financial numbers just too big and the projects too risky due to length and unknowns?

Two issues that are definitely known:

• how is the "disruptor" investor going generate income that gives them a financial return on their investment?
• a "disruptor" investor still has to operate within the constraints of the planning system, and bear the costs of doing so

 

[styles]

I suspect the planning processes are the biggest barrier.

Let's say I want to build a railway line from Chester to Ruthin.

I need to get planning permission from Cheshire, Flintshire, and Denbighshire councils.

On top of that, the Clwydian Range AONB cuts through the middle.

Then all of the usual consultees - the landowners along the way, environment agency, water companies, highways authorities, etc.

Ultimately in most cases you are going to require compulsory land purchase, which in turn is going to require a statute.

So in terms of creating your own railway line completely independently (bar inspections to meet statutory regulations etc), it's just not possible frankly, except maybe some parts of the highlands if you get the landowners on board.

Regarding who actually delivers the infrastructure - Network Rail or a separate private company - yes I can see that a private company could do this, and in many respects may be better placed to do so. Obviously as a private company they want to make a financial return though, so they need some track access charge with the operators or external funding from somewhere. That's not a huge issue.

In practice, so much of the process is determined, paid for, and managed by government that Network Rail just "makes sense". I can't imagine the government would save a significant sum by paying a private infrastructure provider, once you account for all the additionals.

 

[Xavi]

Disruptors are welcomed, but they often get the invitation by offering unsustainable prices which the Treasury (controls DfT and NR) can't resist. This leads to lesser people being deployed, under budgeting (suits the Treasury), companies being thrown out for failing to deliver (Jarvis), and company failure (Carillion). There are other examples but best to stick with those in the public domain.

 

[deltic]

Triggered by reading about EWR a while back. The government set it up as a separate company to do things differently and better, because Network Rail projects were always over budget and late......however it doesn't really seem to have done anything different, nor better.
IMO this is because it was top down - the client (DfT) presumably went to the same list of trusted consultants and contractors and picked the ones with the relevant buzzwords in their slide decks.
Disruption comes from below - individuals who are inside the bubble and understand the bubble and its problems come up with a better way, then find someone to finance their ideas, and then go to the client. Examples would be the 'new' freight companies and OAs with their new methods of operation and new staff T&Cs, or Rock Rail in the ROSCO field.

Is this possible for building new railway and/or major upgrades, or are the financial numbers just too big and the projects too risky due to length and unknowns? You must have to spend an awful lot of money before you get even a vaguely reliable cost estimate. Evergreen was the nearest I can think of but aside from the funding from future track fees it ended up pretty conventional AIUI. The Siemens partial electrification seems to fit the parameters but whether it is anything but a risky PFI with all their problems depends on how much construction risk Siemens are prepared to take.

Any ideas or do we just have to shrug and accept that this is the way its always been done and always will be (or wont be at all because its too expensive)

There is an obsession about doing things differently rather than doing things better. If you read "How big things get built" one of the secrets is to use contractors etc who have done it before, arent learning on the job etc. The TfL team who led the planning of Crossrail had previously worked on the Jubilee Line and knew what needed to be done and how etc. HS2 and EWR both suffered from continual change of staff so in many cases the consultants working on the project had more of the corporate memory than the client.

 

[edwin_m]

There is an obsession about doing things differently rather than doing things better. If you read "How big things get built" one of the secrets is to use contractors etc who have done it before, arent learning on the job etc. The TfL team who led the planning of Crossrail had previously worked on the Jubilee Line and knew what needed to be done and how etc. HS2 and EWR both suffered from continual change of staff so in many cases the consultants working on the project had more of the corporate memory than the client.

Crossrail did fall down at the systems integration stage, which was of a different order of magnitude to that on Jubilee Line, so kind of supports your point. I was involved in Metrolink phase 3, which more than doubled the tram network with 60-some extra stops, all with the same contractors. They learned on the job to the extent that the last route was finished early.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Set up a "new" company. GBREL - Great British Rail Engineering Ltd. Keep them in house as an arm of GBR and Dft. It would take a few years to build up though.

 

[cle]

It would be great if there was a different electrification approach or mechanism - quicker to assemble or another way. Battery manufacture is this, and fairly disruptive once it's fully embraced...

Re lines - there was once upon a time when private lines boomed in Japan. Japan arguably has over-rail provision, for its aging population, in some parts anyway - and lots of branches etc under threat. But - there was a time with the likes of Tobu, Toyoko etc built in competition to JR.

I don't know that we have tons of opportunity for that, or where it would be - and how it would be relatively 'pure' of the NR network, but it's an interesting thing to consider. Brightline are doing it too. Maybe it's an underground thing - e.g. a 4-5 station tube line but private.

 

[edwin_m]

It would be great if there was a different electrification approach or mechanism - quicker to assemble or another way. Battery manufacture is this, and fairly disruptive once it's fully embraced...

Re lines - there was once upon a time when private lines boomed in Japan. Japan arguably has over-rail provision, for its aging population, in some parts anyway - and lots of branches etc under threat. But - there was a time with the likes of Tobu, Toyoko etc built in competition to JR.

I don't know that we have tons of opportunity for that, or where it would be - and how it would be relatively 'pure' of the NR network, but it's an interesting thing to consider. Brightline are doing it too. Maybe it's an underground thing - e.g. a 4-5 station tube line but private.

The Japanese lines are really only profitable because they are able to benefit from the increased value of land near stations. In the UK the Metropolitan was allowed to do that but as far as I'm aware no other railway was.

 

[cle]

But they should do, ideally. I would think that if I built a new station - especially one that was likely to be busy - I would also be thinking about a mall, apartment buildings, office space etc above and adjacent... OOC will have this.

 

[Magdalia]

But they should do, ideally. I would think that if I built a new station - especially one that was likely to be busy - I would also be thinking about a mall, apartment buildings, office space etc above and adjacent... OOC will have this.

This takes us straight back to planning.

As it happens there is a good example in Cambridge that is in the news today.

Housing secretary calls in Beehive Centre redevelopment plans

Plans to redevelop a Cambridge shopping centre have been called in by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner.

www.bbc.co.uk

The housing department has intervened in an application to redevelop a shopping centre, effectively overruling local planners.
Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and deputy prime minister, said a decision on the Beehive Centre in Cambridge should be called in.
In a letter sent to Cambridge City Council, the housing department said: "The application should be referred to her instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority."
The authority's planning committee met on Wednesday to consider proposals by Beehive Centre owners, Railpen, to demolish the existing shops to make way for offices, laboratories and community spaces.

The Beehive Centre site is next to the railway near Coldham Lane Junction (for the historians it was once the sidings for coal coming into the gas works).

In a different world the plans would include a new railway station as part of the redevelopment.

Instead, precedent at Cambridge North and Cambridge South is that a new station might come along about 10-15 years after the property redevelopment.

 

[cle]

Good it is being called in. It's exactly what Cambridge needs.

What is interesting, is that just east of here at Cherry Hinton - a 'Cambridge East' was proposed as part of the latest EWR consultation - ostensibly a station at a turnback... which could be extensions of various services which are sent through Cambridge Central... EWR or otherwise - to turn back. And Newmarket services too (Ipswich being a sdervice which was mentioned as a through EWR)

I'm not sure two eastern Cambridge stations would work - being so close, but the Beehive going ahead would give that site the advantage for sure.

 

[edwin_m]

But they should do, ideally. I would think that if I built a new station - especially one that was likely to be busy - I would also be thinking about a mall, apartment buildings, office space etc above and adjacent... OOC will have this.

BR funded modernisation of several London termini in the 1980s via oversite development, as did Crossrail in the 2010s. But I believe historically in the UK railways (other than the Metropolitan) seeking powers in Parliament weren't allowed to acquire land outside their "limit of deviation", and had to sell back any that was acquired within this limit but turned out not to be needed. In recent years there have been various discussions about "value capture" of nearby land as a way of funding rail improvements, but I think the only one that came to fruition was the business rates levy raised in the areas surrounding the Elizabeth Line stations to contribute to its construction cost.

 

[Magdalia]

Good it is being called in. It's exactly what Cambridge needs.

What is interesting, is that just east of here at Cherry Hinton - a 'Cambridge East' was proposed as part of the latest EWR consultation - ostensibly a station at a turnback... which could be extensions of various services which are sent through Cambridge Central... EWR or otherwise - to turn back. And Newmarket services too (Ipswich being a sdervice which was mentioned as a through EWR)

I'm not sure two eastern Cambridge stations would work - being so close, but the Beehive going ahead would give that site the advantage for sure.

I don't know very much about "called in" planning applications, the Beehive case is going to be an education!

Regarding the EWR consultation, the impression I got was that EWR couldn't explicitly include a Cambridge East station because it was outside their remit. The same applied to the east side entrance/exit at the old station. The Cherry Hinton turnback and the bridge on the eastern side of the old station are within the remit because they are directly for EWR.

I think that separate Beehive and Cambridge East stations would work, the latter is going to be important for whatever gets built on the airport site. The more bits of Cambridge that are within walking/cycling distance of a station the better.

BR funded modernisation of several London termini in the 1980s via oversite development, as did Crossrail in the 2010s.

An example where funds were supposed to go the other way was London Docklands, though my recollection is that the developer contribution to the transport infrastructure turned out to be much lower than originally envisaged.

 

[eldomtom2]

Re lines - there was once upon a time when private lines boomed in Japan.

That being a century ago! While the private railways remain profitable today they definitely don't see much if any expansion in their future. They also benefitted from being built during a period of rapid industrialisation that allowed to buy up large amounts of greenfield land on the cheap and develop it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Examples would be the 'new' freight companies and OAs with their new methods of operation and new staff T&Cs, or Rock Rail in the ROSCO field.

Rock Rail was founded by people from one of the ‘traditional’ ROSCOs…

The TfL team who led the planning of Crossrail had previously worked on the Jubilee Line and knew what needed to be done and how etc. HS2 and EWR both suffered from continual change of staff

The team that did the planning / environmental / consents for JLE moved largely on to Crossrail, and then largely moved on to HS2.

But I believe historically in the UK railways (other than the Metropolitan) seeking powers in Parliament weren't allowed to acquire land outside their "limit of deviation", and had to sell back any that was acquired within this limit but turned out not to be needed.

Indeed, that is a fundamental part of planning law.


Back to the OP, what is the objective of the ‘disruption’? Quicker? Cheaper? Better?

Given that this is the construction industry, what ‘disruptors’ have there been in other branches of construction ?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

In recent years there have been various discussions about "value capture" of nearby land as a way of funding rail improvements, but I think the only one that came to fruition was the business rates levy raised in the areas surrounding the Elizabeth Line stations to contribute to its construction cost.

There’s an attempt to do that with the Cowley branch: Oxford City Council is pre-booking £2.5m of Community Infrastructure Levy from developments along the route to contribute to the cost.

 

[Meerkat]

Rock Rail was founded by people from one of the ‘traditional’ ROSCOs…

Indeed, people from inside the bubble who thought it could be done better, found finance, then went to the clients.

Back to the OP, what is the objective of the ‘disruption’? Quicker? Cheaper? Better?

Given that this is the construction industry, what ‘disruptors’ have there been in other branches of construction ?

Quicker, cheaper and better.
Always hearing that rail stuff is just too expensive to build, but it doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
So I wondered if there was a better way, and if this needed a new entry to prove it (whilst wanting the new entry to be from insiders, not outsiders who think they can do better because they don’t understand the problem).
The second question is a good one. I guess I am just plaintively hoping that there is a better way rather than the railway carrying on pricing itself out of expansion.
I’m thinking the big problem is time and locking output spec for a long period*. ie The way that Heathrow South Link reckoned they could do it all privately funded but needed guaranteed use and paths on the NWR lines.
* Which sounds like the risk in the Siemens plan - they will build for X and if you later decide you want to change X it’s going to hurt the wallet big time.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed, people from inside the bubble who thought it could be done better, found finance, then went to the clients.

Quicker, cheaper and better.
Always hearing that rail stuff is just too expensive to build, but it doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
So I wondered if there was a better way, and if this needed a new entry to prove it (whilst wanting the new entry to be from insiders, not outsiders who think they can do better because they don’t understand the problem).
The second question is a good one. I guess I am just plaintively hoping that there is a better way rather than the railway carrying on pricing itself out of expansion.
I’m thinking the big problem is time and locking output spec for a long period*. ie The way that Heathrow South Link reckoned they could do it all privately funded but needed guaranteed use and paths on the NWR lines.
* Which sounds like the risk in the Siemens plan - they will build for X and if you later decide you want to change X it’s going to hurt the wallet big time.

It is possible, however, that any potential 'disruptors' have realised that they too will come up against the same issues that any other constructor has, and the risk is just not worth taking for the likely margins available.

There’s an attempt to do that with the Cowley branch: Oxford City Council is pre-booking £2.5m of Community Infrastructure Levy from developments along the route to contribute to the cost.

Which in rail infrastructure and operating cost terms is not a lot of money!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Which in rail infrastructure and operating cost terms is not a lot of money!

Indeed. The expected total cost is £135m of which £20m would be raised locally (explained in this council document). The £2.5m is a start towards the latter.

 

[InTheEastMids]

In a different world the plans would include a new railway station as part of the redevelopment.

It'd only be a mile from Cambridge station. I know there are other examples of stations very close together e.g. City Thameslink/Blackfriars but I think that really there should be other solutions for areas this close to existing stations - buses, micromobility, maybe even light rail.

Incidentally, did others notice in the BBC coverage who the developer of Beehive is? Railpen. How much ex-railway land do they own?

Quicker, cheaper and better.
Always hearing that rail stuff is just too expensive to build, but it doesn’t seem to be getting any better.

It's a subject that's been properly done to death over the last few years. There's actually two slightly different problems
1. Why infrastructure costs so much in the first place
2. Why these projects ever seem to deliver according to budget and schedule

At least once a year, some expert review will publish a report. These basically say the same things every time. The most recent one I've seen is from the Institute of Civil Engineers (link below), and worth a read if this is a new area for you.

https://www.ice.org.uk/news-views-insights/inside-infrastructure/why-uk-infra-delivery-costs-so-much-how-to-fix-it

- A lack of clear strategic direction
- Challenges with project clients and sponsors
- Inefficient consenting and compliance
- A constrained supply chain

Offshore wind has done a lot better than railways in cost reduction. Part of this is because it's had 15 years of reasonable stable policy (across Europe, and a cross-party consensus here) that has allowed risk/cost of capital to reduce, scale to grow, clients to become smarter and supply chains to integrate, innovate to reduce cost. A big issue for HS2 and similar public works like A303 Stonehenge is that they are prone to meddling by people Government for various reasons and are demonstrably at risk of arbitrary pausing/cancellation, and this just undermines the case for supply chains for roads and railways to invest and integrate in the same way.

So back to OP question. The biggest disruptor to the status quoshould be Government, providing that long-term strategic vision and leadership, beyond a 5 year cycle. Can't see that happening.

 

[Bald Rick]

The way that Heathrow South Link reckoned they could do it all privately funded but needed guaranteed use and paths on the NWR lines.

Privately financed. But in part publicly funded (which they are understandably shy about)

Offshore wind has done a lot better than railways in cost reduction. Part of this is because it's had 15 years of reasonable stable policy (across Europe, and a cross-party consensus here) that has allowed risk/cost of capital to reduce, scale to grow, clients to become smarter and supply chains to integrate, innovate to reduce cost.

True. Offshore wind is also a lot more ‘cookie cutter’ than most railway projects. And has also come a long way through the maturity / economy of scale curve, which railway construction has long since done.

 

[Dai Corner]

Arguably, Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government have 'disrupted' the Cardiff Valley Lines by acquiring them from Network Rail and electrifying them to a lower standard and at a lower cost than NR would have. For those not aware the electrification is discontinuous, with the tricky parts like Queen Street station, Caerphilly tunnel and low overbridges omitted and batteries on the tram-trains.

 

[Xavi]

Privately financed. But in part publicly funded (which they are understandably shy about)

So, the statement below from HSR only relates to the new infrastructure and not improvements and additional maintenance required on existing routes.

Our forecasting shows that the new to rail revenues which arise from the new services to/via Heathrow will be sufficient to cover the operating costs and access charges of the new railway, meaning that the scheme in operation once mature is not expected to require subsidy from taxpayers.

 

[Meerkat]

So, the statement below from HSR only relates to the new infrastructure and not improvements and additional maintenance required on existing routes.

I thought it was more that it required government funded services to use it (which they say would cover the costs but that is risk)

 

[Magdalia]

It'd only be a mile from Cambridge station. I know there are other examples of stations very close together e.g. City Thameslink/Blackfriars but I think that really there should be other solutions for areas this close to existing stations - buses, micromobility, maybe even light rail.

But have you looked at whether any of these are actually feasible?

Between the old Cambridge station and the Beehive is a network of narrow streets with Victorian terraces fronting directly onto the street and on street parking. Coming from Cambridge North to the Beehive requires crossing the river via a long detour through Chesterton to the Elizabeth Bridge. Both are totally unsuitable for any of buses, micromobility or light rail.

Incidentally, did others notice in the BBC coverage who the developer of Beehive is? Railpen. How much ex-railway land do they own?

Railpen are very shrewd investors. I'm not sure when they acquired the Beehive site but I'm sure it was relatively recently, and with the intention of redevelopment. They have a big portfolio of investments in Cambridge including the Newmarket Road retail park (the other side of Coldhams Lane) and the Botanic Place development in Hills Road near Station Road Corner. Anyone with a rail pension benefits from economic growth in Cambridge! More details are here:

https://www.railpencambridge.com/

Railpen is creating new places, catering to the needs and wants of both people and businesses in Cambridge. High-quality innovation space and best-in-class buildings will cater for businesses of every type and size, while new green spaces and amenities – created for all to enjoy – will have a positive impact across the city.​

 

[Bald Rick]

So, the statement below from HSR only relates to the new infrastructure and not improvements and additional maintenance required on existing routes.

If it is to be truly privately funded, let them crack on, without any government guarantees.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Arguably, Transport for Wales and the Welsh Government have 'disrupted' the Cardiff Valley Lines by acquiring them from Network Rail and electrifying them to a lower standard and at a lower cost than NR would have.

I agree, I think it's unarguable, and there's 2 elements which I think it helps to clearly separate out.

1. As you say, the departure from the traditional approach is notable. Time will tell whether it'll be successful in terms of technology, revenue and regional prosperity.

2. I don't think a Westminster government would ever have funded this kind of transformation in Cardiff

From a UK perspective it's a middle-sized, middle-income city, so is not the natural choice for a big project. A more "Westminster" approach would be to divide this budget up into 94 small projects intended to spread the love around the country, but each only deliver pretty small improvements that hardly anybody notices.

 

[Xavi]

If it is to be truly privately funded, let them crack on, without any government guarantees.

If only it was that simple. Let's say the private investor needs to run 6tph for the business case to stack up, but there are no guarantees the trains will be able to operate on the existing network. No chance, they won't finance an Ordsall Cord.

 

[Bald Rick]

If only it was that simple. Let's say the private investor needs to run 6tph for the business case to stack up, but there are no guarantees the trains will be able to operate on the existing network. No chance, they won't finance an Ordsall Cord.

Or a Woking flyover… So it needs Government funding then…