Parliament to debate great western electrification 14 December 2016

[infoman]

http://www.parliament.uk/business/c.../parliament-2015/great-western-railway-16-17/

14 December 2016 2:30 pm

Public Accounts - Oral Evidence Session
The Great Western Railway

Witnesses:
Philip Rutnam, Permanent Secretary, Department for Transport
Brian Etheridge CBE, Director of Network Services, Rail Group, Department for Transport
Mark Carne, Chief Executive, Network Rail

Location:
Room 6, Palace of Westminster

 

[Envoy]

Does anyone know if it will be on the Parliament TV channel (which is listed under News on the Menu Guide)?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It should be at least on the web.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/82c1a5d8-2053-46d3-9c91-603307f24407

Mark Carne will have to have his bullet proof vest on.
No ORR representation either.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It should be at least on the web.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/82c1a5d8-2053-46d3-9c91-603307f24407

Mark Carne will have to have his bullet proof vest on.
No ORR representation either.

An absolute joke. The ORR have as equal a share to blame in this fiasco as NR and the DfT.

Of course that is just my opinion.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah that's very shoddy on the part of the ORR. One could argue that they are a key factor in the present fiasco!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Yeah that's very shoddy on the part of the ORR. One could argue that they are a key factor in the present fiasco!

seems the ORR has a bucket on its head about the issue....

 

[AlterEgo]

Yeah that's very shoddy on the part of the ORR. One could argue that they are a key factor in the present fiasco!

The committee can summon witnesses if it so wishes, so the flames are directed in the wrong direction here...

 

[Clarence Yard]

Yeah that's very shoddy on the part of the ORR. One could argue that they are a key factor in the present fiasco!

Really? The ORR are not involved in the key project decisions. The project has effectively been closely (mis)managed by NR/DfT.

The right people are in the hot seats today - both the DfT and NR have been well and truly nailed by the NAO report for serial incompetence.

Whether the DfT should have ever got involved in micro managing project outputs is a good question (yet another turf war with the ORR is one of the answers) but even before the reclassification of NR, they were interfering like mad in this and other schemes.

As a taxpayer, I hope they don't just get both barrels today - I would give them pump action!

 

[bastien]

"Electrification means electrification. Get it done. Now."

There, debate over.

 

[godfreycomplex]

seems the ORR has a bucket on its head about the issue....

*cough* why single out this issue *cough*

The ORR seem to be able to get away with murder at the moment

 

[NSEFAN]

"Electrification means electrification. Get it done. Now."

There, debate over.

I know you're joking, but sadly it's that very attitude which has made the electrification project so expensive. It's all well and good for the government to fart out politically-convenient infrastructure delivery schedules, but if the money, resources and expertise aren't there to deliver then it just ain't gonna happen, as we are now seeing!

 

[Mollman]

Really? The ORR are not involved in the key project decisions. The project has effectively been closely (mis)managed by NR/DfT.

The ORR were happy to sign off the original investment plan without questioning it. There again perhaps Osbourne & Cameron should be called too as they were the ones who kept coming out with these ideas to try and win votes.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The ORR were happy to sign off the original investment plan without questioning it. There again perhaps Osbourne & Cameron should be called too as they were the ones who kept coming out with these ideas to try and win votes.

Was there even a 'plan' worthy of the project when the CP5 determination was made in 2013?
Didn't the ORR create an 'adjustment mechanism' to deal with emerging efficient costs as they became clearer? Trouble is that they have never become clear to anybody.

 

[swt_passenger]

There again perhaps Osbourne & Cameron should be called too as they were the ones who kept coming out with these ideas to try and win votes.

2009 Mode: There again perhaps Brown and Adonis should be called too as they were the ones who kept coming out with these ideas to try and win votes.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The ORR were happy to sign off the original investment plan without questioning it. There again perhaps Osbourne & Cameron should be called too as they were the ones who kept coming out with these ideas to try and win votes.

They were effectively told to. The DfT basically decided what schemes were going to go forward in CP5 so it was a top down settlement as far as enhancements went.

That's what the real problem was. They had to make the facts fit what the politicians had promised. I don't think anybody out in the industry ever thought NR was really in a fit state to deliver on the politicians promises, after what had been going on in CP4.

The wise TOCs had their contingencies up their sleeves and made sure they were covered in SoSRA's when they signed their FA's.

 

[Phil.]

It's just one big fat joke. "The railway" wants investment, gets investment then is proved that it can't actually carry the job out - which was only half a job in the first place. Wherever railway heaven is those old engineers must be looking down from it and laughing their socks off.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They were effectively told to. The DfT basically decided what schemes were going to go forward in CP5 so it was a top down settlement as far as enhancements went.

That's what the real problem was. They had to make the facts fit what the politicians had promised. I don't think anybody out in the industry ever thought NR was really in a fit state to deliver on the politicians promises, after what had been going on in CP4.

But it's the ORR (or it's consultants - Atkins?) who micromanage the "efficient cost" of the electrification projects and sign off the tranches of cash for the work.
Not to mention the enforcement of TSIs and the shifting technical standards, and the "no surrender" attitude about derogations.
NR is certainly culpable but they are not the only ones.

The DfT's error was to shift the goalposts several times.
Even now we don't know whether they want 140mph or 125mph capability.
Philip Rutnam is effectively NR's financial director (or banker), as well as running DfT.
I don't know what Brian Etheridge does.
We'll soon know...

 

[HowardGWR]

The thread title is erroneous. It isn't a debate.

That's what is taking place here though.

 

[Clarence Yard]

But it's the ORR (or it's consultants - Atkins?) who micromanage the "efficient cost" of the electrification projects and sign off the tranches of cash for the work.
Not to mention the enforcement of TSIs and the shifting technical standards, and the "no surrender" attitude about derogations.
NR is certainly culpable but they are not the only ones.

The DfT's error was to shift the goalposts several times.
Even now we don't know whether they want 140mph or 125mph capability.
Philip Rutnam is effectively NR's financial director (or banker), as well as running DfT.
I don't know what Brian Etheridge does.
We'll soon know...

The Treasury have now effectively taken over the purse strings. Every change has to be signed off by them as they have put NR on strict cash limits so even CP5 schemes that the ORR "signed off" have to go through that authorisation mill if they haven't already started. The ORR has become increasingly irrelevant in NR investment decisions and may get taken completely out in CP6.

As for Technical Standards, yes I agree the ORR are very culpable at gold plating when sensible derogations would suit everyone. The signing off of work also takes far, far too long.

 

[Domh245]

Just starting now if anyone wants to watch along

Q- "It took Brunel 6 years to build the entire GWR - why is it taking you so long"

Good start...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Does seem to be a lot of questions along the lines of "if bi-modals deliver all of the passenger benefits of electrification, are you going to electrify such and such"

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Hmm. Cancel electrification and let's have battery trains to Bristol?
The committee (a finance one) is struggling to understand how all the benefits for Bristol passengers can be delivered without bothering to wire all the way, so why do we need the wires?
Still no hint of completion dates for Bristol.

 

[rebmcr]

Hmm. Cancel electrification and let's have battery trains to Bristol?
The committee (a finance one) is struggling to understand how all the benefits for Bristol passengers can be delivered without bothering to wire all the way, so why do we need the wires?
Still no hint of completion dates for Bristol.

But it's not ALL the benefits... /smh

 

[TheKnightWho]

Hmm. Cancel electrification and let's have battery trains to Bristol?
The committee (a finance one) is struggling to understand how all the benefits for Bristol passengers can be delivered without bothering to wire all the way, so why do we need the wires?
Still no hint of completion dates for Bristol.

Precisely. It's the same argument used by those who hate bimodes, who say it's an excuse to not wire anything.

Why not just order diesel trains then?

 

[coppercapped]

So, what I learnt:

• the ORR is out of the loop in the future - enhancement projects will be bilateral agreements between the DfT and Network Rail
• the DfT effectively blamed the GW modernisation debacle on the ORR - it not being robust enough in challenging NR's cost and time assumptions
• the DfT will no longer specify that a given route has to be electrified - it will define high level requirements such as journey times, passenger numbers and NR will present a series of options to meet the requirements
• all projects to be specified and planned in detail before approval is given. This includes MML and trans-pennine electrifications

As I suspected and posted some weeks ago - the High Level Output Specification will no longer exist in its current form.

It will be interesting to read the final report.

 

[Dave1987]

Precisely. It's the same argument used by those who hate bimodes, who say it's an excuse to not wire anything.

Why not just order diesel trains then?

Because they can now get away with it. Before the bi-modes arrived on the scene it would not have been an option to cancel/defer/delay electrification. Now we have MPs questioning whether it's worth finishing off electrification when they can get shiny new trains but no disruption from the engineering works.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The "railway" had a decent day.
None of the individual questions were too difficult, and Rutnam and Carne didn't have any trouble answering them.
I suppose it goes with the territory, but local lobbying got in the way (Bristol v MML).
They came close to saying the whole electrification thing should be cancelled.
Nothing was really said about the project's execution or progress (but the HOPS has done 17 piles a night).

Nobody asked for resignations, which is surprising. Lots of lessons learned.
The Scot who kept on about National Rail and Mr Carney (who runs the Bank of England) was just amateurish, and failed to land any punches.
But good to see DfT and NR on the same page.
Brian Etheridge didn't say much but appears to be the project sponsor.
And a BCR of 1.6 is fine by Philip Rutnam, and "better than Thameslink's 1.4".
I was surprised to find that Bechtel are playing a major project management role for NR - shades of WCRM.

 

[urpert]

If Bechtel are involved then things must be worse than they appear. They make their fortune by fixing projects that have gone seriously wrong (WCRM, JLE etc etc).

 

[Domh245]

If Bechtel are involved then things must be worse than they appear. They make their fortune by fixing projects that have gone seriously wrong (WCRM, JLE etc etc).

I think that he was saying that they were involved from the beginning when they were being questioned as to whether planning or project management was at fault.

 

[HowardGWR]

The "railway" had a decent day.
None of the individual questions were too difficult, and Rutnam and Carne didn't have any trouble answering them.
I suppose it goes with the territory, but local lobbying got in the way (Bristol v MML).
They came close to saying the whole electrification thing should be cancelled.
Nothing was really said about the project's execution or progress (but the HOPS has done 17 piles a night).

Nobody asked for resignations, which is surprising. Lots of lessons learned.
The Scot who kept on about National Rail and Mr Carney (who runs the Bank of England) was just amateurish, and failed to land any punches.
But good to see DfT and NR on the same page.
Brian Etheridge didn't say much but appears to be the project sponsor.
And a BCR of 1.6 is fine by Philip Rutnam, and "better than Thameslink's 1.4".
I was surprised to find that Bechtel are playing a major project management role for NR - shades of WCRM.

See bold. Oh dear!:roll:

 

[coppercapped]

If Bechtel are involved then things must be worse than they appear. They make their fortune by fixing projects that have gone seriously wrong (WCRM, JLE etc etc).

Rubbish. Bechtel manages projects all around the world - it is not only, and in fact not really, a trouble-shooting company. It had a turnover of over $30 billion in 2015.

It managed the rebuilding of Reading station which by dint of early re-phasing came in £3 million under budget and a year earlier than the first estimates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The "railway" had a decent day.
None of the individual questions were too difficult, and Rutnam and Carne didn't have any trouble answering them.
I suppose it goes with the territory, but local lobbying got in the way (Bristol v MML).
They came close to saying the whole electrification thing should be cancelled.
Nothing was really said about the project's execution or progress (but the HOPS has done 17 piles a night).

Nobody asked for resignations, which is surprising. Lots of lessons learned.
The Scot who kept on about National Rail and Mr Carney (who runs the Bank of England) was just amateurish, and failed to land any punches.
But good to see DfT and NR on the same page.
Brian Etheridge didn't say much but appears to be the project sponsor.
And a BCR of 1.6 is fine by Philip Rutnam, and "better than Thameslink's 1.4".
I was surprised to find that Bechtel are playing a major project management role for NR - shades of WCRM.

The 'railway' may have had a 'decent' day, but it was painfully clear that the DfT was way out of its depth in the original planning and specification of the modernisation of the Great Western. And NR did not get off scot-free either.

The DfT - or rather Adonis - announced the electrification of the route before the work had been properly scoped and the costings were available. Network Rail assumed that it would be able to borrow its way out of trouble, the DfT ordered the IEPs without integrating their introduction with the route modernisation and electrification. The ORR's input was inadequate in tracking NR's progress. Then NR was re-classified as a nationalised business in 2014 and had to live within the limits of the CP5 agreement. Carne stated that last year the estimated coast of the GW project was increasing by £100 million a month.

Only last year did the DfT set up a GW Modernisation Project Board to enable all these efforts - including the resignalling and civils works - to be properly coordinated. This board is chaired by DfT's Brian Etheridge - the third witness.

As the chairman said 'Failure to plan is to plan for failure'.