Restoring your Railway Fund Update

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'm 53. How many of the RYR schemes does Bald Rick expect to see open in my lifetime up until 2049 if I make it to 80 ) ?

I'd punt less than 5 unless the costs are substantial reduced.

 

[WesternBiker]

'Could begin' is easy to write. 'Will begin' may even be written one day. 'Has opened' is likely to be written decades away, if it ever is. Work to reinstate in 2024 needs definition. What work? Does a funding study not already count?

A lot of what is written about the RYR schemes seems to be rose-tinted. Of course, it makes for a good headline / quote. But one only has to look at has been written about the Portishead line over the last 15 years to realise the difference between rhetoric and reality…

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

A lot of what is written about the RYR schemes seems to be rose-tinted. Of course, it makes for a good headline / quote. But one only has to look at has written about the Portishead line over the last 15 years to realise the difference between rhetoric and reality…

Indeed they've probably spent more money developing that one than it would have cost to open it.

 

[507020]

And that would be tens of millions of pounds just to achieve, what, a 20 mile/hour curve? It would be a huge ask.

Indeed they've probably spent more money developing that one than it would have cost to open it.

This is why they need to proceeed immediately with delivery, dispensing with all other meaningless phases, particularly the "feasibility study" since all reopening schemes are certainly feasible, just not necessarily dirt cheap.

I read a book recently while on lockdown by a guy who used to work the MGR trains on that line. I think parts of the line were prone to colliery subsidence and the track was nackered in places even then in the 1980's 90's.

More significant infrastructure work can't be a bad thing.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

'Could begin' is easy to write. 'Will begin' may even be written one day. 'Has opened' is likely to be written decades away, if it ever is. Work to reinstate in 2024 needs definition. What work? Does a funding study not already count?

"Work to re-instate will begin" = Chainsaw Charlie followed by Freddy Flail will clear some undergrowth, perhaps sufficient to allow a basic trolley to run / be hand pumped the entire route.

The route from Stoke-on-Trent to Cauldon Quarry was cleared around 1999, it never re-opened (for freight that was). Indeed Stoke-on-Trent to Leek is another RYR money pit.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yet trains are still pathed that way; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H23983/2022-09-16/detailed

I wonder when the last actually ran?

you might notice that Leicester doesn’t feature in that Schedule.

I'm 53. How many of the RYR schemes does Bald Rick expect to see open in my lifetime up until 2049 if I make it to 80 ) ?

somewhere between 5 and 10. Mostly new stations.

 

[Starmill]

I'm 53. How many of the RYR schemes does Bald Rick expect to see open in my lifetime up until 2049 if I make it to 80 ) ?

Was it really realistic to expect large numbers of new services or stations from just half a billion pounds of capital expenditure?

Most of the money is being used to pay for the Okehampton services, the Northumberland line and a variety of new stations. All of them worthy causes. Separately Transport Scotland is funding a range of new stations and reintroducing rail services to Leven. That's a similar performance.

This is why they need to proceeed immediately with delivery, dispensing with all other meaningless phases, particularly the "feasibility study" since all reopening schemes are certainly feasible, just not necessarily dirt cheap.

What, so that you end up delivering something that's fundamentally flawed and as a result does not serve its intended purpose? Because that's precisely what would happen in this scenario.

More significant infrastructure work can't be a bad thing.

It certainly can. If you build a very very expensive piece of infrastructure which is then never used, you get laughed at and you then don't get any more public funding. Why would you want that?

The industry is already viewed in some quarters as utterly hopeless at capital project management, regardless of whether that's deserved or not. Even in the past few years vast wastes of money have been allowed to proceed e.g. Reston, Soahm, Bow Street, Bermuda Park and Island Line remodelling. These all provide very limited benefits and should never have been priorities. They have at least got potential for the future (except for Reston which is a dead duck for all time and should be a major scandal), but there are other locations for stations which are unbuilt and unlikely to receive funds now as a result of them being allocated elsewhere, but would have been vastly better value for money.

Going back a generation of projects, East Midlands Parkway, then back another one, Shirebrook - Worksop, and those incredibly wasteful mothballed connections between HS1 and the existing network are other examples of tremendous waste.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Was it really realistic to expect large numbers of new services or stations from just half a billion pounds of capital expenditure?

Not with about a third budget wasted on feasibility and business cases consultants

Most of the money is being used to pay for the Okehampton services, the Northumberland line and a variety of new stations. All of them worthy causes. Separately Transport Scotland is funding a range of new stations and reintroducing rail services to Leven. That's a similar performance.


What, so that you end up delivering something that's fundamentally flawed and as a result does not serve its intended purpose? Because that's precisely what would happen in this scenario.


It certainly can. If you build a very very expensive piece of infrastructure which is then never used, you get laughed at and you then don't get any more public funding. Why would you want that?

The industry is already viewed in some quarters as utterly hopeless at capital project management, regardless of whether that's deserved or not. Even in the past few years vast wastes of money have been allowed to proceed e.g. Reston, Soahm, Bow Street, Bermuda Park and Island Line remodelling. These all provide very limited benefits and should never have been priorities. They have at least got potential for the future (except for Reston which is a dead duck for all time and should be a major scandal), but there are other locations for stations which are unbuilt and unlikely to receive funds now as a result of them being allocated elsewhere, but would have been vastly better value for money.

Never fear Scotland are good for scandals Reston pales into insignificance compared to the financial disaster of the Scottish ferries nearly 3 times above budget and at least five years late even that date could still be worsened. One of the underlying causing was an ill defined pursuit of the ships to be LNG powered draw your own parallels with their daft discontinuous electrification projects along with hydrogen powered trains.

Going back a generation of projects, East Midlands Parkway, then back another one, Shirebrook - Worksop, and those incredibly wasteful mothballed connections between HS1 and the existing network are other examples of tremendous waste.

 

[Starmill]

Not with about a third budget wasted on feasibility and business cases consultants

It's not a whole third of half a billion pounds. But even if it were how much would that extra approximately £167 million buy, are you claiming?

Consultants are regularly used by Network Rail and local authorities or regional transport bodies. This is because they're cheaper than maintaining in house staff to do this work. Where in-house would be cheaper at larger authorities or Network Rail strategic planning, it's used.

Nice try at trotting out the same old common criticisms which have been debunked time and again!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It's not a whole third of half a billion pounds. But even if it were how much would that extra approximately £167 million buy, are you claiming?

Consultants are regularly used by Network Rail and local authorities or regional transport bodies. This is because they're cheaper than maintaining in house staff to do this work. Where in-house would be cheaper at larger authorities or Network Rail strategic planning, it's used.

Nice try at trotting out the same old common criticisms which have been debunked time and again!

Agree sensible consultants are bought in but the vast amount of environmental reports and feasibility studies required to support a planning application to basically reinstate many of these railways thats already there is just ridiculous. For example on the Portishead branch . They had to submit 212 documents to support the national planning application

https://infrastructure.planninginsp...ranch-line-metrowest-phase-1/?ipcsection=docs

Yes maybe this is necessary for East - West Railway being built on a new alignment but not on an existing formation.

OK maybe my one third is a bit over kill but in 2019 MetroWest reported that they had expended £30m of the then £116m for

scheme development costs, DCO consenting costs, land costs, highway works, environmental mitigation

although given costs have now gone up another £30m you could say its only 20% now but given its at £152m its pretty well written off a third of the fund for 5km of new railway. So how it passes any business case is beyond me and until someone gets a grip of costs unfortunately i can't see the fund doing much more than maybe opening new stations on existing lines.

 

[javelin]

Consultants are regularly used by Network Rail and local authorities or regional transport bodies. This is because they're cheaper than maintaining in house staff to do this work. Where in-house would be cheaper at larger authorities or Network Rail strategic planning, it's used.

Nice try at trotting out the same old common criticisms which have been debunked time and again!

I must say, most times I've read a consultancy report I'm left with the feeling it was written by someone without an in-depth knowledge of the subject at hand. In terms of the railways it often manifests as being very dismissive of more innovative solutions that the writers are likely unfamiliar with. I've seen reports directly contradict Network Rail advice on light rail projects for example.

For instance there is a new report by Network Rail on the March-Wisbech reopening. They were asked to check the results of a commisioned consultancy report. Turns out the consultant's analysis was bunk, ignoring pathing issues and the hefty cost of level crossing upgrades.

This is a real problem for the railways, as the ignorance these works often display can lead to multimillions going down the drain. What are we paying the consultants for exactly if they are not actually providing expert advice?

 

[Starmill]

Agree sensible consultants are bought in but the vast amount of environmental reports and feasibility studies required to support a planning application to basically reinstate many of these railways thats already there is just ridiculous. For example on the Portishead branch . They had to submit 212 documents to support the national planning application

https://infrastructure.planninginsp...ranch-line-metrowest-phase-1/?ipcsection=docs

Yes maybe this is necessary for East - West Railway being built on a new alignment but not on an existing formation.

OK maybe my one third is a bit over kill but in 2019 MetroWest reported that they had expended £30m of the then £116m for

Indeed. West of England Combined Authority and North Somerset are achieving poor value for money from the Portishead reopening because they are trying to consent something which is only going to deliver an hourly service, with demand for not more than two coaches, using a Development Consent Order. A similar consent cost could have bought them a city wide tramway, but this is what they wanted. Technically, the application may yet be rejected. Hardly the fault of any consultant WECA / NS have contracted to work on it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Technically, the application may yet be rejected. Hardly the fault of any consultant WECA / NS have contracted to work on it.

Not saying it is they only deliver the outputs that the commissioning bodies have requested and perusing a sample of submitted documents they are comprehensive but why do we need for example a 70 page document covering Cultural Heritage or 300 pages+ in 17 separate documents covering flood risk assessment. The railway exists, as largely do the majority of projects that RYF is enticing, and all that is needed is some relaying and signalling bought up to current standards. Unless we cut through this bureaucratic process all these projects will achieve is lots of professional consultants documents consuming vast amounts of money rather than it being spent on actually delivering some physical assets and improvements for local communities.

 

[Starmill]

why do we need for example a 70 page document covering Cultural Heritage or 300 pages+ in 17 separate documents covering flood risk assessment. The railway exists, as largely do the majority of projects that RYF is enticing, and all that is needed is some relaying and signalling bought up to current standards

Because that is the calibre of work which is necessary if a Development Consent Order is being applied for. WECA / North Somerset knew this before taking a decision to apply for one.

It is worth pointing out that the railway does not exist in Portishead itself, and that the Application is for somewhat more than just a short section of new track.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Because that is the calibre of work which is necessary if a Development Consent Order is being applied for. WECA / North Somerset knew this before taking a decision to apply for one.

It is worth pointing out that the railway does not exist in Portishead itself, and that the Application is for somewhat more than just a short section of new track.

Again i don't question the quality or quantum of what has been provided by consultants but the necessity for such documentation to just revitalise an existing piece of railway infrastructure. So ive just perused the latest funding statement for this project


and they are now forecasting expending 37m of the the 152m total on development work so 25% of the cost has gone on what i largely consider to be non essential activity. Of course they could have never avoided spend anything preparing the way but really anything more than 10% should be considered excessive.

The other point over Portishead is, even given the ridiculous cost, the various bodies funding it are just channelling the various funds they receive from government be it from Transforming City Fund, Local Growth Fund, Economic Development Fund etc etc through talking shops so why DfT doesn't just fund these projects and remit NR or someone else to deliver them is beyond me.

 

[Bald Rick]

Portishead is something of a cause célèbre; in that NR were not involved (but told the promoter they were being wildly optimistic), then when the promoter ran into difficulty came to NR and, quelles surprise, the cost increased to what it should have been in the first place.

 

[johnnychips]

Portishead is something of a …NR and, quills surpirise, the cost increased …

Porcupines in Portishead?

 

[Bald Rick]

Porcupines in Portishead?

no need to be spiky

(corrected)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Portishead is something of a cause célèbre; in that NR were not involved (but told the promoter they were being wildly optimistic), then when the promoter ran into difficulty came to NR and, quelles surprise, the cost increased to what it should have been in the first place.

For sure they were utterly naïve ten years ago with expecting it to be £10m but when NR did get involved it went to £40-50m then £116m and now £152m. No one here can possible think that £152m is value for money for 5km of new track a couple of stations (which will only be 3 coaches now as that was part of the latest effort by NR to save money to make the scheme viable!) and refurbishing 9km of existing track. The costs that can't easily be avoided in our over safety conscious world is sorting out the various road crossing i accept. One cost that can be avoided in the here and now is remodelling Parson St Jcn which whilst essential is it really needed for the hourly service proposed and would probably cut out at least £20m.

 

[A0wen]

Not with about a third budget wasted on feasibility and business cases consultants

I've been managing IT projects for a decade or more and its not uncommon to see tgat.

The reasons though are clear - if you go for less analysis in the Business Case (BC) you have to put a higher tolerance of cost variance on there and you need to invest more in the design phase of the project and revalidate the BC at the end of design.

Pretty much everyone who doesn't work in project delivery thinks that the costs of BC and design are too high and should be reduced. Those self same people are the ones that either run a mile when you offer to reduce those costs but tell them the +/- variance on the estimates is now 50% rather than 10% or approve it and then have total amnesia about it when the costs start to escalate. It's why I insist on written approvals from such stakeholders and have no hesitation in sending their mails back to them when amnesia strikes.

 

[Starmill]

For sure they were utterly naïve ten years ago with expecting it to be £10m but when NR did get involved it went to £40-50m then £116m and now £152m. No one here can possible think that £152m is value for money for 5km of new track a couple of stations (which will only be 3 coaches now as that was part of the latest effort by NR to save money to make the scheme viable!) and refurbishing 9km of existing track. The costs that can't easily be avoided in our over safety conscious world is sorting out the various road crossing i accept. One cost that can be avoided in the here and now is remodelling Parson St Jcn which whilst essential is it really needed for the hourly service proposed and would probably cut out at least £20m.

You've answered your own question. The cost is for 15km of route, level crossing remediation and signalling changes. Remodeling of a junction with the mainline and changes to the signalling there. Plus two new stations. All while accommodating future freight traffic and not disrupting any of the existing freight or passenger services (including compensation payments if you are to disrupt them). And a Development Consent Order. Realistically this isn't going to come cheaper than £100 million in any scheme.

Against this, what are the benefits? Very low demand because you're only providing an hourly service which doesn't go into the city centre, but drops people a 20 - 25 minute walk from Broadmead (along horrible roads). Note the existing bus service between Bristol and Portishead which takes a similar generalised journey time once this 20 minute walking allowance is added. Because demand is so low the need for subsidy will be enormous - a DMU plus driver and guard will cost many times over what this service will earn per year.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I've been managing IT projects for a decade or more and its not uncommon to see tgat.

The reasons though are clear - if you go for less analysis in the Business Case (BC) you have to put a higher tolerance of cost variance on there and you need to invest more in the design phase of the project and revalidate the BC at the end of design.

Pretty much everyone who doesn't work in project delivery thinks that the costs of BC and design are too high and should be reduced. Those self same people are the ones that either run a mile when you offer to reduce those costs but tell them the +/- variance on the estimates is now 50% rather than 10% or approve it and then have total amnesia about it when the costs start to escalate. It's why I insist on written approvals from such stakeholders and have no hesitation in sending their mails back to them when amnesia strikes.

What they've spent doesn't cover detailed design which is why DfT is now funding 14m on it to presumably ensure that the cost is robust before giving full authority by April 23.

The plain fact remains they've spent 37m on gaining the development consent order that money hasn't gone on business cases its gone on various studies over which i would question the relevance of spending time and money like Cultural Heritage as i said above. This is an existing railway that just needed bringing up to modern standards why does it need all this bureaucracy. They would have been far better to have spent it on detailed design so they could be assured of the costs.

You've answered your own question. The cost is for 15km of route, level crossing remediation and signalling changes. Remodeling of a junction with the mainline and changes to the signalling there. Plus two new stations. All while accommodating future freight traffic and not disrupting any of the existing freight or passenger services (including compensation payments if you are to disrupt them).

If they are having to account for Sch4 that is quite frankly nonsense in today world where DfT takes all the revenue risk its effectively giving money to a project to recycle it back through NR and GWR and itself.

And a Development Consent Order. Realistically this isn't going to come cheaper than £100 million in any scheme.

well we've answered the question first asked above in #119 - no more than 5 schemes!

Against this, what are the benefits? Very low demand because you're only providing an hourly service which doesn't go into the city centre, but drops people a 20 - 25 minute walk from Broadmead (along horrible roads). Note the existing bus service between Bristol and Portishead which takes a similar generalised journey time once this 20 minute walking allowance is added.

You have to wonder how the business case can stack up here

Because demand is so low the need for subsidy will be enormous - a DMU plus driver and guard will cost many times over what this service will earn per year.

MetroWest have already identified it will need c£12m of operational subsidy in the first three years.

Im not familiar with any of the otehr schemes in play to know whether they would be a better investment or not.

 

[Starmill]

You have to wonder how the business case can stack up here

It doesn't. In common with other projects, e.g. the Borders Railway which was signed off with a BCR of 0.5. If this goes ahead, in its current incarnation, it will be very poor value for money. Therefore trying again and again to make it work is by definition wasting public money. But that's unfortunately the local government system we have.

well we've answered the question first asked above in #119 - no more than 5 schemes!

Adding an extra stop to an existing service which already has capacity for it usually produces very good value for money.

 

[Kingham West]

It doesn't. In common with other projects, e.g. the Borders Railway which was signed off with a BCR of 0.5. If this goes ahead, in its current incarnation, it will be very poor value for money. Therefore trying again and again to make it work is by definition wasting public money. But that's unfortunately the local government system we have.


Adding an extra stop to an existing service which already has capacity for it usually produces very good value for money.

With a few exceptions, in the UK, people will not get out of their cars for a bus, but they will for a tram or train.
This is a fact that needs to be faced by Transport Planners, I have no doubt the use will exceed the very expensive studies, but someone doing a PhD on the costs and delays of this scheme, would be a very welcome step..

 

[deltic]

With a few exceptions, in the UK, people will not get out of their cars for a bus, but they will for a tram or train.
This is a fact that needs to be faced by Transport Planners, I have no doubt the use will exceed the very expensive studies, but someone doing a PhD on the costs and delays of this scheme, would be a very welcome step..

Most rail schemes attract most of their passengers from the bus network and new users, the numbers attracted from cars is minimal regardless of whether its an urban or intercity service.

 

[507020]

Most rail schemes attract most of their passengers from the bus network and new users, the numbers attracted from cars is minimal regardless of whether its an urban or intercity service.

Aren’t passengers more likely to be attracted out of cars where the roads are extremely poor, resulting in higher than average misery for drivers, as on the Portbury Hundred?

 

[deltic]

Aren’t passengers more likely to be attracted out of cars where the roads are extremely poor, resulting in higher than average misery for drivers, as on the Portbury Hundred?

No - the only proven way to get people out of their cars is when car use is restricted - ie remove parking, pedestrianise or introduce charging

 

[Starmill]

With a few exceptions, in the UK, people will not get out of their cars for a bus, but they will for a tram or train.
This is a fact that needs to be faced by Transport Planners, I have no doubt the use will exceed the very expensive studies, but someone doing a PhD on the costs and delays of this scheme, would be a very welcome step..

This is a common claim but not one backed up by emperical experience I'm afraid.

No - the only proven way to get people out of their cars is when car use is restricted - ie remove parking, pedestrianise or introduce charging

Exactly. If the UK were to take the obvious first step of charging for road space on strategic roads rather than flat miles driven by current fuel duty then it would help. Same for restrictions on cars in every urban centre, where they have no place. But sadly we're not going towards policies like that. Quite the opposite - driving has had a nice universal price cut courtesy of the government this year. Nothing similar for the railway.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Against this, what are the benefits? Very low demand because you're only providing an hourly service which doesn't go into the city centre, but drops people a 20 - 25 minute walk from Broadmead (along horrible roads).

Except, that in terms of commuter traffic (which is where relief from the Portbury Hundred is most needed), the white collar centre of Bristol has shifted dramatically over the last 25 years to now sit right next to Temple Meads at Temple Quay. You only have to look at how crowded trains are coming in from North Somerset in the rush hour (or at least were pre-pandemic) to realise how the train is a highly attractive option.

And that shift will continue over the next couple of years when the new University of Bristol campus is built on the old Post Office/Bath Road depot site, which as well as academic jobs will offer ancillary and service roles. Similarly the Dental School on Temple Quay.

And of course, you can change at Bristol to commute to Bath and Abbey Wood - again fairly heavy traffic flows from other North Somerset stations exist to these destinations so why would Portishead be any different?

As for leisure traffic, I agree that Temple Meads is not ideally located for the retail centre, but I question whether Cabot Circus is 25 mins walk (it isn't). And if you are in Portishead then I suspect you will already (if able) drive to Cribbs Causeway, rather than into the centre.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't. In common with other projects, e.g. the Borders Railway which was signed off with a BCR of 0.5. If this goes ahead, in its current incarnation, it will be very poor value for money. Therefore trying again and again to make it work is by definition wasting public money. But that's unfortunately the local government system we have.

Which was based on an overly pessimistic passenger forecast.