Scottish HLOS for CP6 (2019-24)

[InOban]

I know. I just don't believe it. Either the Borders Railway was massively over budget and they hid the overruns or Levenmouth reinstatement is being platinum plated. I mean, £20M a mile for rehabilitating an extant railway?!

All over the UK schemes are being costed at prices which seem ludicrous to you and I. I would love to see an analysis of NRs costings. On the other hand, there may be real issues with,say, mine workings which need be infilled. After all, the Alloa line needed extensive work because it hadn't been done properly the first time.

 

[mcmad]

Levenmouth isn't extant, certainly not passed the opencast loading pad. Its one train in steam operation so would need completely resgnalled and the track relaid at a bare minimum.

 

[najaB]

Levenmouth isn't extant, certainly not passed the opencast loading pad.

It is extant inasmuch as it is still listed in the sectional appendix (though OOU). It last hosted trains in the early-1990s so one would assume that the trackbed is in better condition than the Borders Railway. The latter cost something on the order of £8.5m/mile.

 

[mcmad]

I'd put it in the Stirling-alloa-kincardine basket in terms of condition. Only saving grace is the lack of major structures

 

[47271]

Bear in mind that Kintore, no more than a two platform halt costed quite aside from the separate doubling of Aberdeen-Inverurie, is being priced at a minimum of £12m. In this context the figures getting quoted for Levenmouth seem quite believable.

Coincidentally, £12m pa is approximately the profit Abellio manages to take from Scotrail. It always amuses me that those so scandalised by Scotrail being run for profit by a private operator can't acknowledge that the yearly total margin would barely pay for a small unstaffed station on an existing route.

 

[najaB]

I'd put it in the Stirling-alloa-kincardine basket in terms of condition. Only saving grace is the lack of major structures

SAK cost c. £60M for 13 miles - costs are getting crazy.

 

[InOban]

Including or excluding the subsequent remediation works?

 

[najaB]

Including or excluding the subsequent remediation works?

I believe that was the original budget. The remediation added something like £15M taking the total to approximately £75M for almost two and a half times the length of line.

 

[clc]

I notice the base cost for Levenmouth is only £42m. The rest is risk, optimism bias (50%), 2008-2015 rail construction inflation and Network Rail's design management fee:

Base Cost - £42.2M

Base Cost + Risk - £49.9M

Base Cost + Risk + Optimism Bias - £74.9M

Base Cost + Risk + Optimism Bias + Network Rail Design Management Fee - £84.3M

Total Cost (inclusive of additional rail inflation) - £91.1M

 

[najaB]

I notice the base cost for Levenmouth is only £42m.

That's still about twice what it should cost given that there are no major structures and no property owners to compensate, but a lot better than the £91M headline figure.

 

[InOban]

But still ridiculous. In this part of the world there are contractors who will build a forest road from scratch, designed for, and used by, 44 tonne timber trucks. Given that the route already exists, £2 million would cover it. Then you have to lay the tracks and signals, sure. But £42 million? You're taking the p#ss.

 

[najaB]

Given that the route already exists, £2 million would cover it. Then you have to lay the tracks and signals, sure. But £42 million? You're taking the p#ss.

I would've expected the price to be somewhere between £15-20M all in. That said, I've never walked the route so I have no idea what condition the trackbed is in. Even at £5M a mile it shouldn't top £30M.

 

[mcmad]

Given just a bare bones standard track renewal of rail, ballast and sleeper will cost somewhere North of £1M/km then the crayonista's need to have a reset.

 

[najaB]

Given just a bare bones standard track renewal of rail, ballast and sleeper will cost somewhere North of £1M/km then the crayonista's need to have a reset.

That's on an open railway so it needs to be 'railway engineering' (possessions need to be taken, limited access points, working at weekends/evenings, etc.) This is a closed line so it's 'normal' civil engineering for the most part.

Let's say that rail, ballast and sleepers cost £1M/km - that's £8M. There's a big jump from £8M to £42M.

 

[mcmad]

Thats just for rail, sleepers and ballast thou. Add on drainage, signalling, structures... it soon mounts up.

 

[najaB]

Thats just for rail, sleepers and ballast thou. Add on drainage, signalling, structures... it soon mounts up.

Indeed it does. But £42M worth?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Indeed it does. But £42M worth?

Signalling costs a fortune.

 

[najaB]

Signalling costs a fortune.

It's a five mile, single track branch line - it could be done as one train in steam!

 

[Trackbedjolly]

Thats just for rail, sleepers and ballast thou. Add on drainage, signalling, structures... it soon mounts up.

Hello I'm a new member and would like to offer some information for consideration on re-openings.

What people need to bear in mind is that even an operational freight route cannot be opened for passenger use without it being brought up to a modern standard for health and safety reasons. This can require a very substantial adaptation of the earthworks. Look at the amount of stone used on the Borders Railway to safeguard against cutting slope failures, possibly thousands of tonnes in total. Embankments may also require regrading or reinforcing.

On top of this (well under it actually) is the unknown factor of mines works remediation. This has to be done and the cost is related to where it occurs not the overall length of track. So if the amount of remediation is the same as it was on A-B or Borders Railway the costs will be similar to those projects. This will increase the apparent cost per mile even though it may only affect a short distance. So the cost will appear to be disproportionately large over 5 miles of track compared to 30 miles.

As regards the trackbed it also needs to be built to the standard required for the speed of the proposed service. I don't know what is there now but I would expect they might do a renewal using steel sleepers. Also depending on the subgrade and drainage conditions they may need to install a drainage blanket and separating geotextile or even a reinforcing geotextile.

It certainly isn't cheap to rebuild a railway and there a number of factors which are not always apparent which affect the price.

 

[InOban]

Brought up to a modern Standard for H&S reasons: that's the nub of the problem. The Levenmouth branch needs be brought up to a standard adequate for purpose, in this case dmus travelling at say 60mph. What derogations are available for slower, lighter trains? Since much of the route was used until recently by freight trains the formation must have been good for higher axle loads than it would need for a passenger service.

I fully accept the need to check for, and address any mineworking issues, but as others have pointed out, this a closed line, no need to organise possessions.

In the meantime, all over the UK, there are reopenings which are being delayed or abandoned because costs have spiralled unsustainably. People are forced into more polluting and more dangerous modes of transport. Somebody has to get a grip, so that both infrastructure and operation can be delivered at a price and a standard which is affordable. If this entails abandoning certain traditions, even rules, then so be it.

 

[mcmad]

Has there been a timetabling exercise for the Leven branch at all? The current Fife circle service is, with an odd exception, still run as an inner and outer circle for Edinburgh with little time available without recasting the whole timetable and increasing the units required to run out and back to Leven?

 

[clc]

Scottish HLOS:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/publ...el-output-specification-for-control-period-6/

Details of enhancement projects will be set out in the 'Investment Strategy' later this year.

 

[IanXC]

Scottish HLOS:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/publ...el-output-specification-for-control-period-6/

Details of enhancement projects will be set out in the 'Investment Strategy' later this year.

Last page contains an absolute gem...

At the time of publication of this HLOS, the UK Government has advised the Scottish Ministers of its intention to change the basis of funding for Network Rail in CP6, but the first formal proposals about how these new funding arrangements will work in Scotland were not received from the UK Government until the evening before the publication deadline of 20 July 2017. This has not left time for prudent consideration and the necessary negotiations to confirm satisfactory arrangements. Therefore, it is not possible for the Scottish Ministers to publish a Statement of Funds Available at the same time as this HLOS.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

development of an efficient electrification technical specification optimised for Scotland that, in support of the Investment Strategy, can deliver an efficient and affordable rolling programme of electrification with appropriate plant, staff and resources based in Scotland to deliver the outputs and maximise the benefits to Scotland, including through the supply chain

Quote from TS HLOS

 

[YorkshireBear]

quote " development of an efficient electrification technical specification optimised for Scotland that, in support of the Investment Strategy, can deliver an efficient and affordable rolling programme of electrification with appropriate plant, staff and resources based in Scotland to deliver the outputs and maximise the benefits to Scotland, including through the supply chain" end quote

Well at least one part of the UK can see the value in doing so and not just throwing the huge investment in skills away. Maybe scotland have twigged that the the HOOP train will be available on the cheap soon?

 

[Altnabreac]

Scottish HLOS:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/publ...el-output-specification-for-control-period-6/

Details of enhancement projects will be set out in the 'Investment Strategy' later this year.

Ministers are obviously still really angry about the Flying Scotsman cancellation saga:

6.3 Since the devolution of rail powers in 2005, the Scottish Government has fully funded Network Rail to establish and maintain an accurate asset database, including gauge data. The Scottish Government has also fully funded the maintenance of asset capability, including gauge clearances. The current approach to gauging processes has not been satisfactory, adding significant risk, delay and cost to the introduction of new rolling stock, the reallocation of existing rolling stock, the development of new rail freight business, and the efficient operation of charter and tourist trains. Passenger and freight train operators should be able to plan the movement of vehicles around the network without the need for expensive and time consuming bespoke gauging exercises.

In general there is a big emphasis on Network Rail getting a grip on understanding its existing asset condition, gauge and capability:

6.32 Experience in previous Control Periods has shown that incomplete or inaccurate asset data has led to risks, delays and costs for the wider industry and funders. Asset management and investment in enhancement projects in Scotland must be underpinned by accurate asset data, including gauge information, which is consistently maintained at an A2 standard as a minimum and appropriate Network Capability statements to allow customers to make informed business decisions. Where it represents and can clearly demonstrate value for money, etwork Rail’s asset management strategy should include the increased rollout of Intelligent Infrastructure Monitoring and Remote Control Monitoring of assets across the network.

Really comes through that TS and Ministers are not at all happy with Network Rail at present. Seems a particular feeling that Milton Keynes HQ have been being obstructive and submitting bills for things like gauging and new stock acceptance that Ministers felt was included in the general funding.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well, it's a very different document from the DfT version, and shows a grasp of detail that seems to evade Marsham St.
It looks like they are fed up with "158s not cleared on the WHL"-type situations, with the gauging strategy - essentially all stock to go anywhere by the end of CP6.
I also wonder what "fully funded" means in terms of these functions in Scotland?
It almost looks like an attack on the Dark Tower at Milton Keynes, as far as Scotland is concerned.

 

[47271]

All of which is useful to be reminded of when we're trying to think of good reasons for Scots control of infrastructure in threads such as in the Scotrail one below.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=149440

 

[Mordac]

If there's going to be new electrification in CP6 (and despite me being as far as you could be from an SNP fan, in this case they didn't drop the ball like the UK government did), then I'd say the following are the priorities:

Glasgow to East Killbride and Barrhead (with dualling as much as affordable in the case of EK)
Anniesland

Eliminating these two remaining islands of diesel operation in the central belt I think would give you the most bang for your buck, not only because you get more DMU for EMU replacements, but also for reasons of operational flexibility, especially in the case of Anniesland.

If there's any money after this, then I guess next would be Dunblane to Perth, or Dundee depending on business cases and how ambitious they're feeling. I suspect going all the way to Dundee might have a better business case even if it's more expensive, because there's more services terminating there vice Perth. But I could be wrong, because I don't know if there's any challenging to electrify bits of track from there to Perth.

 

[route101]

If there's going to be new electrification in CP6 (and despite me being as far as you could be from an SNP fan, in this case they didn't drop the ball like the UK government did), then I'd say the following are the priorities:

Glasgow to East Killbride and Barrhead (with dualling as much as affordable in the case of EK)
Anniesland

Eliminating these two remaining islands of diesel operation in the central belt I think would give you the most bang for your buck, not only because you get more DMU for EMU replacements, but also for reasons of operational flexibility, especially in the case of Anniesland.

If there's any money after this, then I guess next would be Dunblane to Perth, or Dundee depending on business cases and how ambitious they're feeling. I suspect going all the way to Dundee might have a better business case even if it's more expensive, because there's more services terminating there vice Perth. But I could be wrong, because I don't know if there's any challenging to electrify bits of track from there to Perth.

Used the EK line yesterday , was a busy 2 car 156 just after lunchtime . Wonder if the line from Busby to East Kilbride will get double or just an extra loop ? I think some bridges will have to be rebuilt for the wires .EK could do with 3x trains an Hour