Why so long to develop East - West Rail?

[jimm]

Humble apology sir - a clerical error on my part
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The funding the Consortium gathered would have paid for the 'do minimum' proposal that was their GRIP 4. Now that the DfT is going to bankroll the scheme it has:

1. A more intense service pattern;
2. Covers a larger geographic area;
3. Provides a better quality railway corridor;
4. Effectively feeds into the wider regional/national network.

So, the original scheme developed by the Consortium is quite different from that being promoted by the DfT, Network Rail and the Consortium now.

No, it's not.

Have you actually read the Grip 4? It contains proposals for a preferred Western Section train service looking remarkably similar to that in the 2013 brochure put out jointly by the consortium and Network Rail (which was involved rather sooner than 'last year') and as currently outlined on the East West website, ie hourly Reading-Oxford-MK, hourly Marylebone-Aylesbury-MK and hourly Reading-Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford.

What bigger geographic area? The initial idea for the consortium 20 years ago came from councils in East Anglia, who have always been fully engaged. And they were all well aware of the wider opportunities the route presents, but that wasn't the job of that Grip 4 report and they were working in a situation where the Government was not bothered - but don't let the facts get in the way, will you?

As part of the government's indifference to the proposals over many years, it insisted East West was of purely local value, not of wider strategic or rail network importance, hence it was up to the local authorities to do the best they could on their own to find ways to serve the supposedly local-only needs, so the consortium had to proceed on that basis - even if the members were all well aware of its far greater potential and kept telling the government that for donkey's years before the message sank in.

http://www.railfuture.org.uk/ox-cam/docs/EWRGRIP4BusinessCaseNon-TechnicalSummaryJuly2010.pdf

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2013814_east_west_rail_leaflet_2.pdf

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/train-services/

 

[Class 170101]

The full Wikipedia article is actually correct, but Class 170101 has selectively quoted what Wikipedia says.

In the section below, it goes on to clearly explain what the platform will be used for, and if Class 170101 had read this thoroughly, he wouldn't be quoting Wikipedia to various experts and interested parties.

It says

FYI I did read the article in question but I was seeking to challenge the notion the the bay was build with services to Reading in mind at its inception. It was not. It was originally built so that Bedford to Bletchley services could eb extended to Milton Keynes. Therefore in this case I must disagree with you and indicate I feel the selective quoting is correct as per my previous post.

I appeciate that the use for this platform has now changed to focus towards Aylesbury / Reading rather than towards Bedford but that was not my argument.

 

[The Planner]

Like I have said before, a few people I know from route mod days have said that it was known as the Reading bay. People can make their own assumptions on what they want to believe!

 

[work-traveller]

No, it's not.

Have you actually read the Grip 4? It contains proposals for a preferred Western Section train service looking remarkably similar to that in the 2013 brochure put out jointly by the consortium and Network Rail (which was involved rather sooner than 'last year') and as currently outlined on the East West website, ie hourly Reading-Oxford-MK, hourly Marylebone-Aylesbury-MK and hourly Reading-Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford.

What bigger geographic area? The initial idea for the consortium 20 years ago came from councils in East Anglia, who have always been fully engaged. And they were all well aware of the wider opportunities the route presents, but that wasn't the job of that Grip 4 report and they were working in a situation where the Government was not bothered - but don't let the facts get in the way, will you?

As part of the government's indifference to the proposals over many years, it insisted East West was of purely local value, not of wider strategic or rail network importance, hence it was up to the local authorities to do the best they could on their own to find ways to serve the supposedly local-only needs, so the consortium had to proceed on that basis - even if the members were all well aware of its far greater potential and kept telling the government that for donkey's years before the message sank in.

The service pattern from the Consortium days refers to cross-country and freight services but made by specific provision (that's the change in geographic scope), so the DfT has helpfully put some flesh on those bones. Also the Consortium proposals didn't go south of Aylesbury, but happily they now do. This has made the service pattern more intense and so (in part) changed the appearance of the project in terms of infrastructure. So that helps explain why the design has necessarily been reviewed and changed.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

FYI I did read the article in question but I was seeking to challenge the notion the the bay was build with services to Reading in mind at its inception. It was not. It was originally built so that Bedford to Bletchley services could eb extended to Milton Keynes. Therefore in this case I must disagree with you and indicate I feel the selective quoting is correct as per my previous post.

I appeciate that the use for this platform has now changed to focus towards Aylesbury / Reading rather than towards Bedford but that was not my argument.

It only became known as the Bedford platform in 2006 during the remodelling though - prior to that, it was the Milton Keynes South bay, and was very infrequently used.

 

[jimm]

The service pattern from the Consortium days refers to cross-country and freight services but made by specific provision (that's the change in geographic scope), so the DfT has helpfully put some flesh on those bones. Also the Consortium proposals didn't go south of Aylesbury, but happily they now do. This has made the service pattern more intense and so (in part) changed the appearance of the project in terms of infrastructure. So that helps explain why the design has necessarily been reviewed and changed.

If you mean the idea of XC trains from Manchester to the South Coast bypassing Birmingham by going via MK and East West, that has been talked about for years, as has the potential for XC-type services from the East Midlands via Bedford, as has the potential for freight. These ideas are not some amazing handing-down of stone tablets from the almighty DfT in the past couple of years.

As I keep saying, pretty much everyone except the DfT could see the big picture years ago. It was the DfT that kept insisting it was a project with purely local benefits, so it was up to the locals to deal with it - and design a scheme to meet those purely local needs. So they came up with the ideas that informed the scope of the Grip 4 business case, even though they were all well aware of the many other things East West could do - which DfT and the Treasury finally woke up to in 2011.

I'm afraid you are wrong about the Marylebone service. It is quite clearly indicated as the intended destination on the map and proposed service pattern list on page 10 of the Grip 4 study.

http://www.railfuture.org.uk/ox-cam/docs/EWRGRIP4BusinessCaseNon-TechnicalSummaryJuly2010.pdf

 

[work-traveller]

Aaaaaanyway - as interesting as this is to fill a few quiet minutes, we have a live project with a delivery programme and a route to necessary powers and funding. Happy days...

 

[jimm]

Aaaaaanyway - as interesting as this is to fill a few quiet minutes, we have a live project with a delivery programme and a route to necessary powers and funding. Happy days...

Aaaaaanyway - let's just post a lot of nonsense as though it's true...

 

[DarloRich]

People in Stourbridge somehow manage to stomach changing at Stourbridge Junction.

Like I said, you will have six or seven trains per hour between Milton Keynes and Bletchley once East West is running, so no one will be waiting 25 or 30 minutes, will they?

Plus there will be more frequent trains for those travelling between Milton Keynes/Bletchley, Woburn Sands, Ridgmont and Bedford thanks to the Oxford-Bedford trains.

And I expect Bletchley station might just get a bit of a makeover to reflect its new importance.

Whilst I agree almost entirely with what you (and several other learned correspondents) have posted in this thread there is some evidence that the lack of a direct service to MK has retarded passenger growth on the Marston Vale Line. It is cited as the main reason why people ( especially commuters) don't use the line in greater numbers. That and the poor reliability. I don't really mind changing trains but many do.

(The community rail group conducted a survey a few years ago but i cant find it now!)

PS Even after this work is complete and more trains are running between Beltchely and MK most of us on the Vale will be reliant on the hourly LM ( or other) service. It might say c.60 minutes MKC - Bedford on NRES but far too often it is X minutes via bus

I've always wondered how a train would go directly from the Vale line to MKC. In order to get the right turn from Bletchley depot it would require a steep incline and go over the top of a great big building. Or knock the building down. Or go under the bridge as the trains do now and have some kind of right turn down there. However, that would shorten a lot of sidings.

Or somehow build a railway that comes in from the north of MKC from Bedford and hit the Oxford stretch at Bletchley. Which seems the best option by far on paper, without cost constraints.

You and me both, but nobody else on here likes that idea

For second best I'd go for the east to north flyover option, with platforms on the flyover and an overhead walkway (?travolator) to the main station. With a branch off it to the nearest point on Sherwood Road, because it'd be rude not to. Tricky, certainly, but also entirely possible, as long as it is approached with the idea of doing it rather than finding as many reasons as possible not to, which unfortunately is highly unlikely to be the case.

Certainly the delay is ridiculous. 20+ years to not get started on rebuilding an existing railway beyond re-clearing vegetation that had grown back since the last time they did it and never followed up, when the original line only took 5 years to build, Act to opening, from scratch, using shovels.

I think HowardGWR is right about make-work for planners. It'd save a lot of hassle just to give them the money for doing nothing. And mission creep on top of planning bloat, as well - I'm jolly sure electrification was never part of the original suggestion because nobody was whining about this anthropogenic climate change nonsense back then, and introducing a major change like that half way through is never going to speed anything up.

This is a joke right? Do you have any grasp of geography or the layout of the site, the costs involved in changing the exiting infrastructure and/or fitting some mad cap scheme into the available footprint before you start buying up an entire business park and then knocking down half of Bletchley! Do you have any grasp of what is actually feasible and realistic in the real world? It is a bit harder than getting out your map and crayons, drawing a nice curve and shouting MAKE IT SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, you and me are on the same page. But the way things are done are supported on these forums and there isn't any other way. Even if 10,000 volunteers under NR guidance came along and track machines and what not, it would never get the green light. It has to be done the long way, or not at all. And like you say, it is just re-instating a railway that already was with a faster line speed. Its really a disgrace to this countries "get up and go" attitude compared to other countries. By the time this line is built America would probably have linked San Francisco to Las Vegas.

MKC is just a headache for the whole EWR thing. It stands out on its own out of the way and wants to be the centre of all the attention.

I did propose a Northampton/Wolverton loop as part of the EWR but they are only interested in shortening the length of time by rail it takes to get from Oxford to Cambridge. There is no reason why that can't be achieved alongside the current model at some point in the future. My ideal would be a Bedford, MKC, Northampton, Bedford loop which coincides with the current plan. Which could create a circular service attracting many passengers for the Vale line.

Bedford Midland will not serve the eventual completed line, I am sure of that. There has been zero obligation to get Bedford Midland on the line thus far and I don't see it changing. There will be a station built called Bedford Central or Bedford South.

Still we are lucky to get what we are getting.. and I am happy for that.

yes obviously a joke - no one in the real world can honestly suggest this surely? I assume you have noticed how big MK is getting or how many people live and work there............

I am going to go and sit in darkened room and cry with frustration. Argh! :roll:

 

[richieb1971]

If I were in government today. This project would be completed within 3 years. Or I would fire everyone until it did get done.

Thats my timetable. Thank God I am not running the country or the railways. There would be some whips cracking all over the place I can tell you.

I believe in value for money and having projects going on for a couple of decades is just not acceptable to me. Especially considering the scope of the project.

By the time they lay any railway tracks the trees would have grown back again.

 

[DarloRich]

If I were in government today. This project would be completed within 3 years. Or I would fire everyone until it did get done.

Thats my timetable. Thank God I am not running the country or the railways. There would be some whips cracking all over the place I can tell you.

I believe in value for money and having projects going on for a couple of decades is just not acceptable to me. Especially considering the scope of the project.

By the time they lay any railway tracks the trees would have grown back again.

sorry - but you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[charley_17/7]

Solution to the MKC problem of being 'the centre of attention', enabling through services without reversal.

Utilise the Bradwell - Newport Pagnell line (currently a redway), but would require a major effort to reconnect to the slow lines on the WCML, then new-build alignment alongside the M1 motorway to rejoin the existing MVL at Ridgmont.

 

[DarloRich]

i give up..................

 

[67018]

If I were in government today. This project would be completed within 3 years. Or I would fire everyone until it did get done.

Thats my timetable. Thank God I am not running the country or the railways. There would be some whips cracking all over the place I can tell you.

I believe in value for money and having projects going on for a couple of decades is just not acceptable to me. Especially considering the scope of the project.

By the time they lay any railway tracks the trees would have grown back again.

If you were in government today, you would crack the whip and fire people left right and centre and in 18 months you'd have spent all the money and have nothing delivered, no project team and no skilled people willing to work for you. And you'd be getting sued all over the place for breaching statutory consultation requirements.

I've seen people try to run projects this way and have yet to experience a situation where they avoid getting fired in short order, usually after about the third or fourth delivery disaster.

 

[swt_passenger]

If I were in government today. This project would be completed within 3 years. Or I would fire everyone until it did get done.

Thats my timetable. Thank God I am not running the country or the railways. There would be some whips cracking all over the place I can tell you.

I believe in value for money and having projects going on for a couple of decades is just not acceptable to me. Especially considering the scope of the project.

By the time they lay any railway tracks the trees would have grown back again.

I think the only infrastructure project you'd be any good at would be digging a big hole for yourself...

 

[richieb1971]

So the best that can be done is being done then.

Network rail and its affiliates would win Gold in the railway Olympics for sure.

On the basis of meeting deadline targets Network rail and the governments have gone above and beyond their call of duty to make plans a reality. Done it below budgets set and provided services which are world class.

And they did this whilst in grip 3.. or whatever that is.

Well done. Excellent!!!

I know one thing for sure.. even if this railway, the GWR electrification or any other railway project was undelivered by 2030 you would all still be here talking about it without any complaints whatsoever.

 

[NSEFAN]

So the best that can be done is being done then.

I don't think anyone is arguing that, it's clearly not alright. You just have your expectations set way too high about how organised the railway can be in the current situation we have. NR getting its house in order would help, but even if it was all perfectly planned the "real world" would come along and tear up that plan because the railway doesn't work in isolation. It has to interact with others around it, for better or worse.

Let's put this in context. East-West rail is re-opening a closed railway line between Bicester and Bletchley. There is no hurry to get this done, after all there is no franchised service to get going at the end of a weekend possession. Meanwhile, the GWR project and other NR projects have been too ambitious and are failing to meet their deadlines, deadlines which were created mostly for political-promise reasons. There just aren't enough "useful" staff who can do the required jobs. No amount of money can fix that overnight. As a result smaller projects like EWR have to be pushed down on the priority list while the bigger problems are sorted.

You can fire people all you want but you'll just lead to brain-drain and ultimately make your life harder. The railway is a mess right now but your dictatorial approach is partly why it's like this in the first place. Many of the good, experienced workers from BR didn't want to take orders from inexperienced management and jumped ship. We're still feeling this 20 years on because the industry is still a mess, albeit mostly working okay-ish from day-to-day. The DfT might believe it has a super ultra master plan of how it will all pan out but in reality that's just a wish list, because of politics changing its mind every other day.

And to NR's credit, trying to standardise projects as per GRIP is a sensible way to try and keep some scope and budget sanity. Otherwise, we'd do what some posters here would suggest and end up with useless gold-plated infrastructure (a bit like the Bletchley flyover has been for the past 50 years!)

 

[The Planner]

You can fire people all you want but you'll just lead to brain-drain and ultimately make your life harder. The railway is a mess right now but your dictatorial approach is partly why it's like this in the first place. Many of the good, experienced workers from BR didn't want to take orders from inexperienced management and jumped ship. We're still feeling this 20 years on because the industry is still a mess, albeit mostly working okay-ish from day-to-day. The DfT might believe it has a super ultra master plan of how it will all pan out but in reality that's just a wish list, because of politics changing its mind every other day.

Indeed, and you just end up going to consultants as you don't have the expertise and end up working with the people who left who earn twice as much and charge you four times that.

 

[work-traveller]

If I were in government today. This project would be completed within 3 years. Or I would fire everyone until it did get done.

Thats my timetable. Thank God I am not running the country or the railways. There would be some whips cracking all over the place I can tell you.

I believe in value for money and having projects going on for a couple of decades is just not acceptable to me. Especially considering the scope of the project.

By the time they lay any railway tracks the trees would have grown back again.

Presumably you'd be using your government position to circumvent the TWA, ECAM, LA planning/technical approval processes (imposed by statute), which will take a good 50% of the 3 years you're allowing the project? That leaves less than 18 months to deliver a lot of infrastructure and T&C it. Good luck

 

[67018]

So the best that can be done is being done then.

Maybe, maybe not. At the moment, as far as I can tell, it's grinding through the various statutory and design processes, and going at about the pace you'd expect of a project of this nature. Although you could argue (and others have done so) that it should have got off the ground earlier than 2011.

I know one thing for sure.. even if this railway, the GWR electrification or any other railway project was undelivered by 2030 you would all still be here talking about it without any complaints whatsoever.

That's fairly easy to disprove, just look at the comments on other threads which have criticised the delivery of the GWR electrification and other projects for being behind schedule. The difference is that (currently) EWR isn't behind - the plan remains 2019 - although a few reasons why that may well slip have already been noted.

 

[richieb1971]

I wasn't expecting such solid replies.

I'm a beggar so I can't be the chooser. I'm starting to blame the system now more than any party or individuals. To me, I envisage an end product and set out to accomplish the project. I don't see how railways differ from any other infrastructure from that standpoint.

If you have a tick sheet and every box must be checked. The more boxes, the more failure points. The more failure points, the more likely it won't be completed. From what I have read above the tick sheet is far too long for a railway as it stands. What exactly are the TWA, ECAM, LA planning/technical approval processes? And are they the parties holding this up / besides the resource issue?

 

[67018]

I wasn't expecting such solid replies.

I'm a beggar so I can't be the chooser. I'm starting to blame the system now more than any party or individuals. To me, I envisage an end product and set out to accomplish the project. I don't see how railways differ from any other infrastructure from that standpoint.

If you have a tick sheet and every box must be checked. The more boxes, the more failure points. The more failure points, the more likely it won't be completed. From what I have read above the tick sheet is far too long for a railway as it stands. What exactly are the TWA, ECAM, LA planning/technical approval processes? And are they the parties holding this up / besides the resource issue?

That's maybe a better way of looking at it - what is the sequence of events that defines the duration of the overall project (the critical path). A lot of it, and the bit that isn't visible, is in the process of getting to the point where actual construction work can begin.

TWA is the Transport and Works Act 1992 and is the legislation that provides legal powers for construction. It's intended to speed the process up as it is now used instead of the previous process of passing a separate parliamentary act. An application is made to the Minister of State for Transport, who can then grant the necessary powers, sometimes after a public enquiry.

I believe 'LA planning/technical approval procedures' refers to the variety of processes needed to get approval from the Local Authorities who will grant the necessary planning permissions etc. This, of course, needs agreement with every authority along the route, and potentially approval for every structure constructed/altered as part of the project.

ECAM is a new one on me, although I'd guess it might be related to environmental impact analysis.

I'd recommend taking a look at the consultation documents https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/communications/ewr-phase-2 which are very illuminating about the level of work that needs to be done prior to approval - certainly taught me a lot. It also gives the timeline for completing the consultation and making the applications to the government (middle of next year).

Also, if you take a look at the thread on the Oxford link, it provides some insight into the sort of thing that holds these projects up. We had aggrieved locals lodging repeated objections, bats in Wolvercote tunnel and don't even get people started on the aggrieved residents of North Oxford complaining about 'noise and vibration'. And all this on a line that was already open and only required one small piece of new construction!

(Note: I am not an expert and am happy to be corrected if any of this is wrong!)

 

[work-traveller]

What exactly are the TWA, ECAM, LA planning/technical approval processes? And are they the parties holding this up / besides the resource issue?

Enhancements cost adjustment mechanism (ECAM)


ECAM is a new mechanism developed between Network Rail and ORR to determine the efficient level of funding available to deliver the enhancements portfolio in CP5. The mechanism will determine the level of funding for enhancements against which Network Rail will out or under perform in the control period.

As projects complete GRIP 3 they will provide evidence to ORR to demonstrate:

• the output is consistent with the HLOS, including capacity analysis where appropriate;
  the output is consistent with the HLOS, including capacity analysis where appropriate;
• where appropriate, an update of the business case assumptions to demonstrate value for
  money;
• evidence of operator buy-in to the selected option;
• a delivery plan change control submission to set out project milestones;
• evidence to demonstrate that the estimate contains planned efficiency initiatives, wherever
  appropriate;
  Draft CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan
  Network Rail 6
• a defined strategy on compliance to interoperability TSIs and other relevant statutory
  provisions; and
• evidence that the selected option is the best whole life cost solution.

ORR will then assess the submission and determine the efficient cost of the project. The funding associated with the project will then be added to the overall funding available to deliver the enhancements programme and Network Rail will retain the flexibility to fund projects as required for delivery from this funding. A forward plan of ECAM submissions, based on completion of GRIP 3 milestones as shown in this document, will be provided to ORR on a regular basis.

ECAM does not apply to Thameslink, Crossrail, EGIP or Borders, as these have their own funding agreements. It also does not apply to the funds (ring-fenced or otherwise) or to projects that have rolled over from CP4, as the efficient price of these projects was determined during the last periodic review.

 

[HowardGWR]

An application is made to the Minister of State for Transport, who can then grant the necessary powers, sometimes after a public enquiry.


(Note: I am not an expert and am happy to be corrected if any of this is wrong!)

It's a Public Inquiry. The one you mentioned is probably someone ringing up to ask the time of the next train. HTH

 

[67018]

It's a Public Inquiry. The one you mentioned is probably someone ringing up to ask the time of the next train. HTH

Oops! - although if that's all I got wrong today then things are going well!

 

[aylesbury]

Today I went to the public consultation in Aylesbury,well laid out room with screens to access information. When the line is open we will have an excellent link from Aylesbury to the north but when you see how many crossings and bridges have to be dealt with you see the enormity of engineering involved.

There will be complaints by the public about certain closures ie a foot crossing in Aylesbury but they will be resolved by construction time. The line from Risborough will be single line but Aylesbury to Calvert will be double and the service to MK will use the bay platform at MK. All bridges will be raised to give clearance for electrification. Between Calvert and Bletchley there will be two freight loops.

The continuation on to Cambridge does not fall into this consultation but two corridors have been identified so work is ongoing. I asked if Aylesbury station will be refurbished but received a non committal reply so I shan't hold my breath. Oxford will be reached from Aylesbury by changing at Winslow and services will be frequent no mention about stock or operator yet. Overall I think that this will be worth waiting for and it will be a high speed line with good journey times.

 

[HowardGWR]

Oops! - although if that's all I got wrong today then things are going well!

It was very useful, thanks. There is, coincidentally, an article by Alan Williams in today's Modern Railways (last page) on this very subject and should please @richieb1971 no end.

 

[70014IronDuke]

So the best that can be done is being done then.

Network rail and its affiliates would win Gold in the railway Olympics for sure.

On the basis of meeting deadline targets Network rail and the governments have gone above and beyond their call of duty to make plans a reality. Done it below budgets set and provided services which are world class.

And they did this whilst in grip 3.. or whatever that is.

Well done. Excellent!!!

I know one thing for sure.. even if this railway, the GWR electrification or any other railway project was undelivered by 2030 you would all still be here talking about it without any complaints whatsoever.

There are countries that work the way you want them to, Richieb1971 - China is one of them - and Iraq had a tendency that way. You did not find many NIMBIES in Sadam Hussein's Iraq, that's for sure.

Which if pretty ok if you were the top honcho, or someone very close, as , in that case nobody builds a 6-lane motorway that so much as impedes on your land, let alone your house. For the remaining 99.5% of society, however, if your house was in the way, tough luck. Complain and you'd be enormously lucky to only rot in jail for the rest of your life.

Democracy is not an easy way of life.

 

[richieb1971]

I am all for health and safety, making a great railway and doing it right.

The problem here is that the tick sheet isn't available for public viewing. Nobody in the public can "see" progress. The work being done should be scrutinized at ANY stage by the public if it falls behind. Everyone has a right to know where tax payers money is going and hows its spent.

 

[jimm]

I am all for health and safety, making a great railway and doing it right.

The problem here is that the tick sheet isn't available for public viewing. Nobody in the public can "see" progress. The work being done should be scrutinized at ANY stage by the public if it falls behind. Everyone has a right to know where tax payers money is going and hows its spent.

If you want to see some progress, go to any point along the line between Oxford and Bicester, where there are 15 miles of progress on the East West rail link available for viewing any time you like. Complete with real trains from October 26...

Your apparent belief that people can just click their fingers and a rebuilt railway will appear is about on a par with the belief of rugby supporters that it is possible to load 35,000 people on to trains at Cardiff Central station in the blink of an eye.