70014IronDuke
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 3,701
Route capacity enhancement projects obviously go through stringent cost-benefit analyses/studies which these days seem to take years and cost the earth (at least from what I read in here).
My question, however, is when such jobs are being considered, are track renewal schedules taken into account? And if so, can they 'tip the balance' in terms of which project gets the go-ahead?
As an example: Let's take a single line route that the TOCs / Network Rail would like to see enhanced with a new passing loop(s), say, like the Highland main line, which has been discussed here in the past.
Let's say Network Rail (I assume?) identify three priority sites for passing loops of, say, 400m length (I guess that's realistic?) all roughly equal in terms of improving capacity on the line, and all close in terms of estimated costs.
At one site (Site A) however, the current single track is due for renewal in any case: so here, installing a passing loop could be done at the same time, and more cheaply overall - rather than simply relaying at Site A and putting in a loop at Site B or C (where, say, the current track is fine for another 10 years).
Taking this a step further, does the "track renewal" department of NR actually put forward works in order for enhancements to be considered? eg If a section of track on the Highland at, say, Stanley needs renewal, do they go to the "route enhancment" department and say: "Look, we're due to renew this mile of track at Stanley in 24 months time - is it worth looking at installing a passing loop at the same time?"
Apologies if this is a stupid question - maybe this is automatically taken into account, or there may be hundreds of reasons why it can't work this way, but from the outside, it seems an obvious aspect that should be taken into account - but due to typical corporate communication blocks, doesn't happen automatically.
My question, however, is when such jobs are being considered, are track renewal schedules taken into account? And if so, can they 'tip the balance' in terms of which project gets the go-ahead?
As an example: Let's take a single line route that the TOCs / Network Rail would like to see enhanced with a new passing loop(s), say, like the Highland main line, which has been discussed here in the past.
Let's say Network Rail (I assume?) identify three priority sites for passing loops of, say, 400m length (I guess that's realistic?) all roughly equal in terms of improving capacity on the line, and all close in terms of estimated costs.
At one site (Site A) however, the current single track is due for renewal in any case: so here, installing a passing loop could be done at the same time, and more cheaply overall - rather than simply relaying at Site A and putting in a loop at Site B or C (where, say, the current track is fine for another 10 years).
Taking this a step further, does the "track renewal" department of NR actually put forward works in order for enhancements to be considered? eg If a section of track on the Highland at, say, Stanley needs renewal, do they go to the "route enhancment" department and say: "Look, we're due to renew this mile of track at Stanley in 24 months time - is it worth looking at installing a passing loop at the same time?"
Apologies if this is a stupid question - maybe this is automatically taken into account, or there may be hundreds of reasons why it can't work this way, but from the outside, it seems an obvious aspect that should be taken into account - but due to typical corporate communication blocks, doesn't happen automatically.
