Network Rail upgrade delayed by government (BBC News Article)

[Olaf]

Any thoughts on how the announcement will affect the modernisation of signalling on the current network? (Specifically the closure of signal boxes and the move to ROCs)

That program is necessary for capacity, and reduction in OPEX, however it has been under going significant revision to reduce the time-scales from 30 to 10 years, and will likely be revised again as the new leadership moves in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This leaves some unanswered questions. Are the whole projects paused or will parts go ahead like Bedford to Corby and York/Selby to Leeds.

The outcome of the reviews are scheduled to be announced around September, so we will know around then. There is the possibility that Corby is sufficiently advanced for it to go ahead in CP5 with available resources once the anticipated re-allocations are completed.

 

[47802]

Basically the Mark 3 coaches are good for another 20 years:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/hsts-are-good-to-2035.html

Just because it may be possible to make them last another 20 years doesn't automatically mean you should do so.

 

[Olaf]

So, the South is a priority for electrification but the Trans Pennine route isn't. There's a surprise.

Nothing to do with the North/South 'divide', except in the eyes of those that suggest that the 'North' is the beneficiary of inferior dispersals, but those sort of people are just peddling the same old mantra of political activists.

If you note the previous commitments of senior members of the current Government, this turns out to be an extremely embarrassing announcement; there is no political advantage to themselves for this re-set of the program, in fact they will not be able to recover the political damage within this Parliament.

 

[47802]

Why are people even surprised by this cancellation? The tories were obviously going to do this as soon as they won power with a majority. They can't balance the books any other way. And obviously HS2 will go ahead as this represents a massive public handout ofmoney to the private sector. The people who bankrolled the tories want their payback. Government partiality is not reserved just for the tories. In the 60s there were some terrible rail closure decisions and reversals. A prime example is what Barbara Castle did with the Woodhead route.
So please don't be surprised at this. To expect integrity from any government is incredibly naive.

While I'm no fan of the Tories or the integrity of Governments, If Network Rail can not do what is planned within the budget given, then you have two choices you either throw more money at it or do less within the budget which is the option they have chosen.

 

[Olaf]

The electorate at large are not that interested in HS2. It was a non-issue at the election. The public have no 'appetite' for a number of projects to which the government is strongly committed.



I agree that less fragmentation and bureaucracy is welcome. However, it will always be the case that upgrading existing infrastructure is problematic. There are many reasons for this, but two key ones are (i) imperfect knowledge of existing assets - e.g. hitting signalling cables that weren't on any drawings and (ii) working on an operating asset - e.g. night-only working at overtime rates paid for a full shift but with only 4 hours' work possible, access issues etc.

There are similar problems with all other infrastructure - for example the 'smart motorway' projects currently underway are very expensive, take a long time, and result in traffic delays going on for years.

By contrast, large new build schemes have tended to run reasonably smoothly over the past decade or so.

I would also add that new routes would first require the acquisition of any land or property on the new route which would be a major cost, and you will still run into the same types of problems along the new route.

Potential savings would probable come from the reduced time for construction (i.e. away from operational railway), but any benefits may be lost in the getting authorisation from local authorities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Was the government right to replace the main at the top?

Absolutely. Also, more need to go. Expect a shake-out.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nothing to do with the North/South 'divide', except in the eyes of those that suggest that the 'North' is the beneficiary of inferior dispersals, but those sort of people are just peddling the same old mantra of political activists.

"Benefit of inferior dispersals"....how can "The tribes of the Northern Province" even think this is so....

There was a scurrilous rumour doing the rounds not so long ago that the Blessed Adrian Shooter was considering the Northern franchise as the recipients of his "new lamps for old" Vivarail conversion of some "only slightly less than new" London Underground units....:roll:

 

[Olaf]

Its more about Government wanting to limit the annual budget to existing committed spending, if its costing more they wont increase the budget they will just require the work take longer. They don't want to increase Network Rails budget because of the impact it would have on the deficit.

If you mean the Government is not prepared to allocate additional funds over and above the existing GBP 38 Billion, then yes that is correct - the program has to fit to the available funding. However, there is the option for additional funds to be made available if one or more projects are deemed to be worth it, but I am expecting a claw-back to be announced at some stage against the allocated GBP 38 Billion, so don't' hold your breath.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's all well and good calling the electrification scheme a fiasco, but the reality is that specialist supply chains don't grow on trees. There's also the issue of how to set up a rolling electrification scheme to achieve benefits of scale, when the reality is that publicly accountable organisations have to go out to procurement for everything down to a pack of toilet rolls, meaning in all likelihood, different costs, different contractors and different supply chain issues for every project - and that's before you get down to whether the winning contractor actually does what it said it was going to do.

To add another twist, it is rumoured on the Blackpool-Manchester Electrification thread that Balfour Beatty (the prime contractor on the NW scheme) is withdrawing from that project.
They are reportedly losing money on the contract.
So even projects not "paused" are being affected by resource problems.

 

[yorksrob]

To add another twist, it is rumoured on the Blackpool-Manchester Electrification thread that Balfour Beatty (the prime contractor on the NW scheme) is withdrawing from that project.
They are reportedly losing money on the contract.
So even projects not "paused" are being affected by resource problems.

Indeed. It all leads to a very fluid set of circumstances.

 

[Olaf]

I also note the speech effectively reinforces the argument for building completely new high speed lines like they do in most developed countries. France has done so for thirty years. I used the LGV to the South of France in the summer of 1986. We might actually be waking up at last here in the UK.

That investment was at a cost to the local and regional networks. France is also has longer distances between it's major cities, and has a lower density of population. Plus there was no consideration given to the affordability of the outcome, which is no the root cause of a number of problems.

I am no against HS2, I can understand the reasoning behind the project, however the cost estimates are wide of the mark, and it looks like an additional 25 - 30 Billion will be required for expenditure by Regional and Local authorities not covered in the project.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From a personal standpoint, whilst not unexpected news it is still very disappointing, especially given the timing so soon after the election and with the language used. As someone well versed in public sector speak, the word "paused" when used in conunction with any project means one of two things:

- The project is in a mess and is going to have to be delayed
- The project is in a mess and is going to be tucked into a corner in the hope that everyone forgets about it

It is clearly the first, but some projects may get re-worked on the basis that the original cost/benefits analysis no longer/will no longer stack up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HS2 is, and always has been, driven by diktats from Brussels ...

Definitely not. Additional capacity is required to address current and projected capacity constraints.

The EU is involved only around legislation on standards and funding.

 

[QueensCurve]

I don't really see how Mr Carne can have been expected to completely turn around a huge organisation in the short time he's been there.

Mr McLaughlin is right to point out the lack of progress on electrification (or anything else on the railway) under labour.

However, when it comes to cost overruns and the expense of projects, we've known since the WCML that the vertical non-integration of the railway and the contractual arrangements involved tend to magnify this expense, therefore as a representative of his party and ideology, Mr McLoughlin must bear some of the responsibility for that.

I don't know that "lack of progress...under Labour" is fair. There was little progress under Railtrack and Labour replaced railtrack with Network Rail.

The mechanism of the RAB - network Rail's "Credit Card" then financed infrastructure improvements which have delivered Rugby and Reading improvements along with a series of much needed flyovers.

CP5 investment has now been capped and annual budgets for nationalised Network Rail don't create an optimistic picture for CP6.

 

[Olaf]

Speaking as a Londoner who would directly benefit from Crossrail 2, for the sake of the nation as a whole I honestly hope that the project is not started until other improvements are made in the North. The economic divide would become even worse if we were to do that.

The North is not going to keep up with growth in the World's primary capital. There is no basis for delaying Crossrail2 for the sake of 'solidarity'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not much of a "Northern Powerhouse" if you can't even stick up some wires between two of the biggest cities involved, but frankly that doesn't surprise me. It's reasonably clear that "Northern Powerhouse", just like "Long Term Economic Plan", was a soundbite rather than an actual policy.

The work is only paused while reviews of the electrification, and the now additional proposals for a 'systems' approach to upgrading the line are undertaken. It will go ahead at some point. In addition, the TPE project is only part of the Manchester Powerhouse initiative.

 

[cjmillsnun]

But any benefits may be lost in the getting authorisation from local authorities.

For big projects like this and motorways, central government can (and do) take the decision out of the hands of local government.

 

[Olaf]

Great Western has the oldest fleet on average out of any of the DfT franchised Tocs. The East Coast Main Line benefited from electrification in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The West Coast Main Line has undergone route modernisation in the last decade.

I do not see that this should be a "North v South" thing because the reality is that the South West is far detached from London & the South East as the North is, so it frustrates me to hear that people on this thread are seemingly trying to turn it into one. The fact of the matter is that the South West of England has seen a fair amount of under-investment in terms of transport projects in general, and that upgrades to the railway in that area are rightly being deemed a higher priority given the limited resources available.

I would add that the activist motivated negative comments also gloss-over the benefits to South Wales of the GWML upgrade.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry but this whole things smells of cost cutting, what better way to save Billions by not spending it.

This is not cost-cutting; the GBP 38 Billion is still in place for now. Claw-backs are still to come. This is all about the extra costs incurred by Tax-payers due to teh incompetence of public-sector employees.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It all seems very political. The lib dems gone and Cleggs' seat loses electrification. I always believed that the electrification projects were to ambitious and tried to please as much of the country as possible.

Perhaps this means they'll concentrate on one area of the country and do it well eg doing all the Thames Valley branches, Bristol metro lines and the Valley lines before moving on to the areas around Sheffield, Nottingham and Leeds in CP6.

MML was pushed into CP5 partly because of the political machinations of the LibDems even though it was an unrealistic proposition. Now reality is restoring the balance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm banging my head against the wall on this one.... It's not the costs that's causing the delay, it's the lack of people and resources to get the job done in the case of MML and the need for something "bigger" for TPX.

The lack of competence of the NR Program office has caused an additional cost to the DfT of in excess of GBP 2 Billion.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

MML was pushed into CP5 partly because of the political machinations of the LibDems even though it was an unrealistic proposition. Now reality is restoring the balance.

Agree - think about three factors in particular:

1) Where is Clegg's constituency?

2) With the GW electrification behind schedule and much of the team expected to move from there to the MML, it was never likely that the bulk of the MML work would ramp up on time.

3) There is only so much money available; if it is not being spent efficiently then it follows that less work will get done in a given time span and that the lower priority / least advanced bits of the work will get postponed.

 

[Olaf]

Deleted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just another unnecessary outside broadcast, because the news producers think that unless the reporter is standing at a station we'll not understand what the story is about. When they could just save a few quid and do the report in the studio.

Yes; would probably have been more appropriate to have filmed the report in a nursery, showing five-year olds playing with a Fisher-Price Thomas the Tank Engine train set; now that would have been more accurate.

 

[Elecman]

And politicians/DaFT aren't responsible for all the project scope creep that the politicians added to GW/ TPE and even NWEP??? , easy to make political soundbite announcements without considering the effect on time/ cost implications of asking for estimates on the hoof. So perhaps not all NRs fault at all

 

[daniel3982]

Is Sheffield the largest city in Europe with no electrified railway?

 

[Olaf]

Yes I do. As regular user of the MML to visit family and friends and to watch the mighty if slightly rubbish Derby County, it's not what I believe but what I know! In terms of HS2 the East Midlands is very low down on the list of priorities. Up until now for many people living in the East and North Midlands that was fine as they knew substantial investment was coming their way through MML improvements. All that positive news ended today.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Once you've paused a project its very easy to stop it all together. Simply because the funding for it has been transferred to the GWML and in the next five years the transport budget will be further slashed. This was a golden opportunity to provide better transport links for the East Midlands and now the moment has gone. Oh well if its right for the SNCF it must be right for the East Midlands.

If you are going to be negative, you will always be disappointed. To get things done, you have to engage the obstacles and keep going. The project will be delivered at some point in the future and this re-set is all about making sure that those commitments are deliverable.

 

[Busaholic]

Is Sheffield the largest city in Europe with no electrified railway?

Irrelevant to the present discussion, but the first city in UK to have a modern electrified tram system.

 

[Olaf]

Isn't the £38.5bn cost a result of the ORR telling NR that they had to do more with less?
If the ORR maybe hadn't screwed NR down so tightly, this mightn't have been an issue, and the work could have been done for how much NR had said it would cost in the first place.

No. NR is a grossly inefficient operation. It must drastically reduce it's OPEX. Efficient organisations are more knowledgeable of their abilities and are less inclined to make these sort of mistakes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What a shame that all the needed projects in the regions are having to be shelved because there isn't the money. Just one unnecessery project could have been ditched.

HS2.

The would be no beneficial impact to the current NR work-bank in dropping HS2 at this time.

 

[High Dyke]

Is Sheffield the largest city in Europe with no electrified railway?

Seemingly; if you don't include the tram network. Other than that Bristol seems to be the next contender.

 

[Kettledrum]

Agree - think about three factors in particular:

1) Where is Clegg's constituency?

2) With the GW electrification behind schedule and much of the team expected to move from there to the MML, it was never likely that the bulk of the MML work would ramp up on time.

3) There is only so much money available; if it is not being spent efficiently then it follows that less work will get done in a given time span and that the lower priority / least advanced bits of the work will get postponed.

Clegg being removed from the Government probably makes the decision slightly easier - but don't forget the Transport Secretary travels on the Midland Mainline regularly to get back to his constituency.

He has probably seen first hand (as I have) that the route is not a complete basket case and that the current operators are able to run a half decent service on it. He will have seen the delays caused by the slow line speed at Market Harborough, the odd service patterns for some of the stations on the route and the occasional over-crowding, particularly when units fail and peak services are short formed.

This was also the broad view of the MPs on the route who contributed to the debate and questions after the announcement.

Electrification means lower running costs, but it also creates the need to purchase new rolling stock...but there's not that much wrong with the current rolling stock.

The plan of pausing the electrification, sorting out Market Harborough, creating an additional path out of St Pancras, and hopefully using some of the GWML HST's to enhance the fleet in the short to medium term is a good one.

The route does have to be electrified eventually as the HSTs will not last for ever, and the running cost saving would be huge.

Market Harborough would need to be sorted out anyway, so it's good that it's going to be done sooner rather then later.

 

[dggar]

Irrelevant to the present discussion, but the first city in UK to have a modern electrified tram system.

I thought Manchester were operating Metrolink before the opening of the Sheffield trams. I assume that's what mean by "Modern"

 

[Olaf]

So what was NR doing committing itself to this timetable in the first place?

lack of competence at numerous levels of the organisation, and a degree of fantastical world-view.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is Sheffield the largest city in Europe with no electrified railway?

The paradox is that it was one of the first to have a main-line electric service (to Manchester via Woodhead).
Sadly it only lasted from 1954 to 1970.

 

[LeeLivery]

I was just thinking how will this affect the GOBLIN? Seeing that the trains have just been ordered, will/should TfL be a bit worried right now?

 

[Olaf]

Straightening the track out at Market Harborough, what would that save, 30 seconds?
Derby improvements maybe would save 60 seconds.

Is there a diagram of the Market Harborough proposed improvemnets?
TIA

There is a document detailing the line speed improvements on the MML on the NR site.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Should splitting NR up be considered?

It is being considered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/trains-to-run-on-lorries-2015062699619

Nothing new:
http://www.automation-drive.com/EX/05-15-06/airport-shuttle-bus-washington.jpg
- From http://airpodat.blogspot.co.uk

Now there will be a few class 442s available shortly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it was to be split up, the best way to do it would be to have the HQ as a holding company with full ownership of the regional subsidiary companies in pretty much the same way as WPP own a large number of businesses.

They all have to comply to a given group standard, but are responsible for meeting their own performance and efficiency targets. Their results are their own responsibility, but they have the benefit of parent company backing and expertise, and benefits of scale when buying from suppliers.

The question of electrification teams having to move areas can easily be solved by having that as another business unit, in effect a supplier to the regions. Same with the various other infrastructure functions.

This business structure combines the benefits of bulk with the flexibility of local control. Look at WPP's results year on year. It works. Very well. The same structure can work in the field of railway infrastructure.

One of the alternatives is to take away major projects from NR, or at least to have it compete with other program delivery suppliers; i.e. turn it into a boutique operation.

 

[Kettledrum]

There was a report done by ARUP - see


http://http://www.emcouncils.gov.uk/write/Case-for-Upgrading-Electrifying-Midland-Main-Line251111.pdf

The "plan" had been to improve journey times by 15 minutes with Nottingham in 90 minutes and Sheffield under 120 minutes, including:

- Improvements to enable higher line speeds scheduled to be delivered by 2014;
- Electrification of the line from Bedford to Sheffield via Leicester and Derby, Trent Junction to Nottingham, plus Kettering to Corby; - now paused
- Accommodating train lengthening for high speed services (up to 11 car formations), and procuring an extra 13 train units; - could now come from GWML MK3s
- Derby station track re-modelling; - still happening?
- Dore Junction re-doubling;
- Further line speed improvements at Market Harborough; - still happening
- Upgrading Sheffield Station, including track remodelling and platform extensions to enable longer trains; and
- Resignalling and track remodelling in the Leicester area.

Plug doors on the HSTs would also reduce station dwell times.

 

[Olaf]

To add another twist, it is rumoured on the Blackpool-Manchester Electrification thread that Balfour Beatty (the prime contractor on the NW scheme) is withdrawing from that project.
They are reportedly losing money on the contract.
So even projects not "paused" are being affected by resource problems.

Yes, Balfour Beatty is in a serious mess internally.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For big projects like this and motorways, central government can (and do) take the decision out of the hands of local government.

There are still sufficient grounds for local and regional authorities to cause delays and cost over-runs. This will be magnified if there was a land-grab involved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agree - think about three factors in particular:

1) Where is Clegg's constituency?

2) With the GW electrification behind schedule and much of the team expected to move from there to the MML, it was never likely that the bulk of the MML work would ramp up on time.

3) There is only so much money available; if it is not being spent efficiently then it follows that less work will get done in a given time span and that the lower priority / least advanced bits of the work will get postponed.

Yes, you are right there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And politicians/DaFT aren't responsible for all the project scope creep that the politicians added to GW/ TPE and even NWEP??? ,

There was no scope-creep in the agreed projects which NR has failed to deliver. None of the of the recent pre-election promises made it on to the CP5 work-bank that I am aware of.