Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

More on the story here:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/25/network-rail-chief-to-step-down-as-385bn-upgrades-are-delayed

 

The main bits:

 

Network Rail’s chairman, Richard Parry-Jones, is to step down and will be replaced by London’s transport commissioner, Sir Peter Hendy.

Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary, ... said major improvements to rail lines in the Midlands and the north of England would now be shelved. ... McLoughlin said that “unacceptable problems” at Network Rail meant the electrification of the Midland mainline linking London to Sheffield – a project described as “critical to maintaining a reliable railway” – would be deferred, as would the electrification of the TransPennine route. He added that there would be a full review of Network Rail’s processes in estimating costs after missed targets and overspending on electrification works.

...

Mark Carne, chief executive of Network Rail, conceded that the five-year plan would have to be torn up, and that the rail operator had been “overly optimistic” about the work that could be carried out.

 
 
Paul
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was said on the World at One that Richard Brown, ex-Eurostar, is joining Network Rail's board as the 'government's special representative'.

The Editor of Rail News was interviewed and said this was reminiscent of the of the British Transport Commission's cost over runs on the railways that lead to the arrival of Dr Beeching and the cuts he imposed, also that the Richard Brown arrival was like a return to British Rail without operating the trains. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder how many of the improvement projects will then get quietly forgotten about ?

 

Even in the age of privatisation, governments (of all colours) cannot stop themselves dabbling with the railways - to their detriment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a quote possibly out of context but 

 

'Over the last year, it has become obvious that the challenges of operating, 

maintaining and enhancing the railway, are significant'

 

seems to be a statement of the bl**ding obvious!

 

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Taking a quote possibly out of context but 

 

'Over the last year, it has become obvious that the challenges of operating, 

maintaining and enhancing the railway, are significant'

 

seems to be a statement of the bl**ding obvious!

 

cheers

All rather simple really - Network Rail was faced with a  situation where people had forgotten how to electrify a railway and what that meant in terms of the whole gamut of engineering requirements - if I was them I wouldn't have started from there but I doubt they had much choice.  Similarly British industry has had little or no incentive to keep abreast of electrification works and developments as it has had no home market orders - not much to do with NR and a lot to do with politcians who would sooner spend taxpayers' money on buying votes through increased benefits rather than investing in the national infrastructure.

 

Undoubtedly the real spur to kicking various folk on the backside must have been the heavily publicised overruns at Kings Cross and on the Western plus the total shambles which goes by the name of London Bridge.  I cannot but help that some of this must be left firmly on NR's plate due - I suspect - to plain lack of experience and loss of experienced staff plus a management policy which in some cases seems to rely more on beating drums and working topdown rather than using practical experience (which still exists) lower down the organisation.  However my views are coloured by what I hear 'from inside' and it has perhaps ever been thus of the railway industry.

 

But let's look at the fact too that some things have gone well.  While there are clearly lots of not directly railway related elements of site work going on the Reading scheme was completed earlier than original estimated date.  Yes there has been abortive expenditure which cause me to question some elements of project management and yes there are some 'sillies' which I think probably reflect lack of full internal inter-departmental consultation during scheme development but it is there and it is working.

 

We need to recognise to that a lot of safety related matters seem a long way out of NR's hands and are either down to national legislation and regulations or down to a railway Rule Book which is produced by an external organisation headed by someone with no railway experience at all.  Rules & Procedures have to be a careful balance of safety and achievability and to do that adequately requires knowledge not only of 'safety' (whatever that means?) but also of the practicalities and process - get the balance right and both are safeguarded to their optimum mutual extent.  Get it wrong and one becomes suborned to the other with an impact on either work process and costs or on i jury rates and staff fatalities; cross the boundary line of common sense and spend more time talking about safety that applying its practicalities and costs will rise (and have risen).

 

So rather a more complex situation than these bald announcements seem to recognise.  But Richard Brown is a past master at sensible cost control so at least he might start at the seemingly heavily inflated upper levels of the NR organisation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't quite understand the comment regarding the GWR electrification, is the Bristol part if the work to go ahead as scheduled and the Swansea section to be postponed, or is the whole project at risk?  Could be a knock on effect to Abellio's plans for Scotrail which involved cascaded HSTs from the GWR franchise.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

having read the news reports, basically this can be summarised as 'Projects taking longer than originally expected, replanning needed'.

 

Everything else just seems to be political point scoring, and the tendency of Journalists to portray events like this as total disasters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I didn't quite understand the comment regarding the GWR electrification, is the Bristol part if the work to go ahead as scheduled and the Swansea section to be postponed, or is the whole project at risk?  Could be a knock on effect to Abellio's plans for Scotrail which involved cascaded HSTs from the GWR franchise.

 

Jim

 

If Swansea doesn't go ahead then there will be serious Political implications - remeber the deal bringing wires to Swansea and the Welsh Valleys requires money from the devolved Welsh assembly. It also causes rolling stock replacement headcases in that do you keep the HSTs or invest in more bi- mode IEP trains rather than straight electrics.

 

In summary, of the 4 big electrification schemes being planned / underway the North Western Triangle and the Great Western Schemes are so far advanced that de-scoping or pausing them is too problematical. With the Trans-pennine scheme and the Midland mainline schemes, serious groundworks have yet to start and things like future rolling stock requirements have yet to be finalised so it is far easier to 'park' these two schemes until NR has the ability to pick them up again.

 

The bigger worry of course is the general public have increasingly moved to "I want it NOW" mentality - not helped by the fact very few people have any engineering / manufacturing background. This attitude then gets reflected by the politicians and the media who start rail bashing when 99% of them have absolutely no understanding for the difficulties Very few of them appreciate just how much work has to go on in the background to install railway kit - its not like going down to Argos, buying a signal then plugging it in and it works just like that!

 

Well I'm sorry if it offends but you can't have it both ways - either the public need to put put up with long blockades (which allow engineers to crack on without needing to fit everything into 4 hr possessions overnight) or accept that it is going to take a long time (and cost more money) to do the work in such a manor that allows the railway to function during the day. (This is something the "HS2 is a waste of money" brigade fail to appreciate too)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

What will be the effect of this of the rolling stock shuffling that has been assumed to avoid building DMUs? Will we shortly see a recanting of the "no Pacers after 2020" line or the "not on my patch" statement about the ex LT stock? Or will we just see even more crowded trains?

 

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the speech to the Commons this doesn't look like a funding cut - more a case of not being able to do as much with the amount of money allocated. 

 

We will (again) loose the skills gained through rolling projects, then it will cost even more, so may get binned permanently

 

Again I'm not sure about that - there are clearly a limited number of skilled people available, and looks like they've been spread over too many projects. Putting them all on to the GW electrification is probably the best thing to do in the short term. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Preston -Blackpool and presumably Wigan -Bolton are on, as is the GW mainline presumably through to Swansea, and therefore presumably Valley Lines electrification.

 

The Midland Mainline is on hold , with route enhancement works and line speed improvements to take the strain in the short term . As the Meridians are the backbone of the Midland fleet, and are only about 15 years old (as opposed to 30-40 year old HSTs on the GW) that's perhaps easier - though as McLoughlan is a Derbyshire MP , he's just postponed his own main line

 

Question mark about Bedford-Corby, where works on the ground have started and electric services would presumably be outer suburban EMUs from the Thameslink fleet

 

New Liverpool St - Norwich trains to replace 90s+Mk3s still on

 

Transpennine (which always looked the furthest step) on hold

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unacceptable problems”.

 

“We can't afford it” is the phrase you're looking for chum.

 

Well, we've all had to rethink our trainset plans at some point...

Opens exhibition programme, "Due to budget constraints, Madeupplacename-on-Sea is a one platform plank with a pacer. Not the four track ole roundy I promised last year.”

 

London wins, the rest of you can make do.

C6T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said from day one, and you'll find reference to it somewhere on this site, HS2 was ill conceived, and the money allocated to it would have been far better spent on infrastructure projects far more deserving, throughout the rail network. My view is scrap HS2 which will benefit the few and use the money elsewhere to benefit the majority!

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I see this as being less sinister/ominous than some I think. No matter how commendable rail investment is the money spent should be spent wisely and deliver value for money. If there have been problems with cost over runs and poor performance then it seems quite sensible to have a timeout to see what has gone wrong and to introduce improvements to processes. This could be a precursor to cuts, it could also be a precursor to a much more realistic and better managed program management regime at NR. As with many questions like this, is the problem a lack of money or is it that the money which is available is not being spent wisely? Or as is more likely, somewhere in the middle, in which case it is critical to use what resources are available to best effect. I tend to go along with the arguments that there is a lack of sufficient technical expertise, that is not meant as a criticism of anybody but in engineering in this country there is an acute skills shortage and I've worked on quite a few projects where the lack of sufficient skilled people was the singularly biggest problem facing the projects, leading to delays, cost over run and poor quality deliverables. And to put that right is not an over night fix, nor is it the fault of one government (it goes back to the 1980's and onwards) and it is not helped by politicians pandering to fears over immigration and not extending visas of people the country needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I see this as being less sinister/ominous than some I think. No matter how commendable rail investment is the money spent should be spent wisely and deliver value for money. If there have been problems with cost over runs and poor performance then it seems quite sensible to have a timeout to see what has gone wrong and to introduce improvements to processes. This could be a precursor to cuts, it could also be a precursor to a much more realistic and better managed program management regime at NR. As with many questions like this, is the problem a lack of money or is it that the money which is available is not being spent wisely? Or as is more likely, somewhere in the middle, in which case it is critical to use what resources are available to best effect. I tend to go along with the arguments that there is a lack of sufficient technical expertise, that is not meant as a criticism of anybody but in engineering in this country there is an acute skills shortage and I've worked on quite a few projects where the lack of sufficient skilled people was the singularly biggest problem facing the projects, leading to delays, cost over run and poor quality deliverables. And to put that right is not an over night fix, nor is it the fault of one government (it goes back to the 1980's and onwards) and it is not helped by politicians pandering to fears over immigration and not extending visas of people the country needs.

I think that sums up an important part of what has happened - work is under resourced.  Some GWML resignalling is put back, then some more is put back, now some drawings are having to be redone due to changed phasing and so on.  Simple fact is that you can't go from virtually zero experience of new work 25kv electrification to 3 large overlapping (in timescale) schemes in the twinkling of an eye - particularly when you just haven't got the experienced folk sitting around waiting to design and install it.

 

And that's before they start driving to drive foundation tubes for the masts into embankments which were grouted with concrete years ago to stop them slipping and wonder why they won't all sink to the same depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to one specific subject that crops up on certain forums, this kind of project re-think has to be the final nail in the coffin for the argument that the driverless national rail system is practically ready to go on a large scale (yes, it is supposed to be happening on the Thameslink route through central London).  It's not something that occurs on here regularly, but over on the Rail UK forum (http://www.railforums.co.uk/) it's a regular topic of debate.

 

The added cost and complexity of a driverless system when the staff are already in place to do the driving won't be considered for a long time if something like the above projects are slowing down to a glacial pace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A good example from another industry is the Astute submarine. After the Vanguard class was delivered there was a long hiatus in ordering more boats and VSEL/BAE lost much of the skills base needed to build a submarine. Not helped by them being designed by Marconi in a piece of manoeuvring gone wrong. The resulting disaster has primarily been laid at the feet of BAE and yet whilst they are certainly not blameless the wider issues have been quietly ignored by most pundits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But additionally jjb, it's irresponsible to promise much and deliver little. If it is the case NR didn't cost the work properly then indeed this needs review, if on the other hand Treasury has rescinded on allocated budget I'd have made it plain as an NR top bod that Govt. welched on the deal meaning my position was untenable.

 

Either way, has the fella fallen on his own sword I wonder. Or am I reading too much into it?!

 

C6T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

What will be the effect of this of the rolling stock shuffling that has been assumed to avoid building DMUs? Will we shortly see a recanting of the "no Pacers after 2020" line or the "not on my patch" statement about the ex LT stock? Or will we just see even more crowded trains?

 

Jonathan

 

As the NW triangle and GWML electrifications are continuing (albut delayed) and also the then the comitment to scrap the Pacers shouldn't be affected as the replacement for these was going to be either new build / cascaded electric stock or DMUs displaced by the electrics.

 

The Pacer scraping pledge had no linkage with the 'paused' MML and only a tiny bit of linkage with the Trans-pennine schemes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

But additionally jjb, it's irresponsible to promise much and deliver little. If it is the case NR didn't cost the work properly then indeed this needs review, if on the other hand Treasury has rescinded on allocated budget I'd have made it plain as an NR top bod that Govt. welched on the deal meaning my position was untenable.

 

Either way, has the fella fallen on his own sword I wonder. Or am I reading too much into it?!

 

C6T.

I agree with that completely. If the government has just decided to rescind allocated funds without being able to justify it then it is not very good at all. If the government offered blatant brides by promising all sorts of projects then it is reprehensible and should be remembered come election time. However it is also possible that it is not so much a lack of funds but more that the funds which are available are not being spent to good effect. That could be for multiple reasons, some financial and some technical and management related. Looking at this it appears to be less cutting funds than reducing the scope of spend to suit available funds which is not quite the same as a cut. There is an old adage that if you are in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging and I do get a sense that calling time out to figure out what is going on and what is a sustainable investment program is sensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I always thought that the Trans Pennine electrification, while desirable, was really too difficult to implement. I doubt if it could be done with overnight posessions, while closing the line for a few months was not really practical - just think of the hundreds of rail replacement coaches stuck on the already clogged M62. As for diversionary routes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I always thought that the Trans Pennine electrification, while desirable, was really too difficult to implement. I doubt if it could be done with overnight posessions, while closing the line for a few months was not really practical - just think of the hundreds of rail replacement coaches stuck on the already clogged M62. As for diversionary routes?

 

There is more than one Trans-pennine rail route - You have options via Diggle or Hebden Bridge for Leeds - Manchester (though obviously with differing journey times)

 

In short it easily do-able from an engineering point of view - but it would take several years of significant disruption. Still you arn't make an omelette without breaking eggs as they say and the disruption to peoples journeys will inevitably be significant and long lasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again those of us who live in the "Northern powerhouse" are going to be left with a second rate rail service. As the transpeninie route will now not be electrified this will result in us not getting new rolling stock, so it looks like nodding donkeys will live longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...