Network Rail upgrade delayed by government

[Foulounoux]

Having just delivered a major business transformation project I can understand the thinking

 

The project I was business lead for was highly successful the first IT project in years to be so according to my boss

 

And I put that down to being given the power at gate reviews to stop the project from going forward until I was happy that the outstanding issues were either dealt with or strong recovery plans and timelines in place.

 

It's far cheaper to put the project right early in the process than try to fix things later

 

It also focuses the minds on getting it right rather than making do with a half right solution

 

 

Colin

[APOLLO]

 

 

Oh Mr Osborne what shall I do ?
I want to build HS2 to Birmingham
And they're putting wires up now well beyond Crewe
Spend the money in London as quickly as you can
Oh Mr Osborne what a silly girl I am.

 

Brit15
 

[lmsforever]

Listening to the news tonight the major point stated was the lack of qualified staff to actually carry out the work required ,this is a recurring problem in this country and not just confined to the railways.I can remember the same comments when the EC main line to Scotland was wired there was an article by Roger Ford  saying that there needed to be a follow on project to keep the team together .Due to the way industry works continuity of staff is not an important matter ,witness how there is a shortage of nuclear power engineers and the railway is a prime case signal engineers imported from India ,and the lack of OHLengineers.I hope that the GWR is not done as the EC on the cheap with non resilent equipment, people might call the original GE electrification over engineered but it has lasted a damn long time.But the real problem is interference by political parties and the dreaded DFT and the fact that to many people sit on their backsides looking at computer projections instead of going out and seeing projects in realtime ,are they afraid of getting dirty .Perhaps we will get a workable plan that will take a few years longer with new rolling stock fed into the network as required at sensible times and dmu,s will have to be produced to replace clapped units.Hey ho this is Britain and we always muddle along with no real thought for the future witness Beeching and all the previous governments decisions on so many projects long live democracy!

[synthnut]

Pulling the plug on network improvements is also a very short sighted economical tactic. As has been mentioned, an issue is shortage of skilled workforce, yet this will potentially cause no end of harm to any growth in the sector. Just as it was looking like a job in the rail industry was like being a plumber, the plug gets pulled so to speak. We've been coasting on a network that has just been patched up as bits fell apart. That's not NRs fault, they simply don't have the resources to do more. This sorry situation has come about because politicians set the framework which causes it's own self destruction and then they point the finger of blame...

 

Put a tourniquet on a limb and it might stem the blood-loss, leave it on an the limb will wither and die!

 

Hmmm....

TTFN

Ben

[david.hill64]

With the glorious benefit of hindsight, I think that this was inevitable. A budget coming on July 8 which is going to be about cutting government expenditure, so the railways are not going to escape and the problems at Christmas - although representing only a small proportion of the works that were undertaken at the time - give politicians an excuse to demonstrate that they are 'doing something'. Being politicians means that they will not know what to do in terms of sensible engineering, but the House of Commons isn't exactly comprised of people who understand science or engineering: much like most of the population. Reading readers' comments in The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Times fills me with despair. The armchair critics point out that the railways in Europe are 100% electrified, are comfortable, cheap and always run to time. Doh!

 

I agree with previous comments that a lack of skilled resource is an issue. Let's hope that concentrating the resources that are available means that the projects that are going ahead get done on time and to the new budgets.

 

The other issue that is going to drop out of this is rolling stock replacement: it is now certain that a new DMU build will be required and technically this is going to be challenging and expensive. I wonder if the Pacer replacement edict was done in the knowledge that electrification was going to be scrapped deferred so that new vehicles will be required for Northern? Having to put up with Voyagers on MML for longer is rather disappointing though.

[phil-b259]

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.

 

Wrong on many counts

 

(1) The north west triangle elctrification plus more bild DMUs promised under the next TPE franchise will see the pacers withdrawn by the dates previously announced

(2) Nobody has said it won't happen in future

 

You are falling into the typical media trap in castingating NR for forces outside their control (and which railway insiders have seen coming for months if not years) - particularly the masive shortage of OHLE engineers and asociated expertise which has meant the UK railway industry has had to build up everything from scratch. Its one thing for ministers to make promises, but NR do not posess magic wands and it was always the case that the ever increasing number of electrification schemes being anounced would cause the industry problems. If you really want someone to blame then thats mainly the two decades under Labour who did absolutely nothing as regards electrification and presided over the virtually disapearance of the necessary skills from our rail industry.

 

NR had to make a choice - suspend work on the GWML or further expansion of the North West Triangle schemes  or pospone the MML and Trans-Pennine schemes and it doesn't take a genius to realise that focusing efforts on the two most advanced schemes makes perfect sense.

[phil-b259]

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

 

I sugest you have a look at some of the cost rises facing the GWML. Quite a lot of those are due to problems encountered when trying to rebuild a InterCity mainline while keeping trains running. The whole advantage of HS2 (and HS1...and all those LGVs in France) is that construction can largely be done without constraints. For example piling work and fitting OHLE can be done during the day (thus making wage bills lower) and mechanised plant doesn't have to be haulled off site so as to allow trains to run during the day. There are no unknown cable runs to hit or unforseen ground conditions (like the grouted embankments that the Stationmaster refered to in one of his posts) to cause issues (and even if problems do occur then they are rarely difficult to resolve.

 

People in this country have a savere defficency when it comes to understanding anything infrastructure related and assume that improving an exsisting asset must be easy simply because its there in the first place. From Motorways to railways to water mains to sewers to pylons - building on a brand new alignment is allways more efficent and costs less when you take into account ALL the extra costs needed to manage users of the exsisting route while upgrades take place. Even many oponants of HS2 recognise this basic fact  - and they have had to move their arguements onto the linespeed chosen for the route or the predicted growth in rail traffic in future decades.

[enginelane]

The issue for me is the difference in costs. Projects are costed at X and in then within a few months have been ramped up not by a few percent but by a hundred fold. Realistic costs for these projects seem impossible and yet these are supposed to be highly qualified people doing the sums. It is not just in rail industry but others are equally blighted IT projects being especially bad and of course there is the conversion of the Olympic stadium at the moment in the news. Regarding the staff not being around to do the job then we have to train them! Currently building new nuclear power stations and not built any of those for years but it's not stopping them being built.

 

I think personally there will be three golden routes London East and West Mainline and the rest will always be a poor third - sorry Lines leading to Wales

[phil-b259]

  Regarding the staff not being around to do the job then we have to train them!

 

They are! - but training takes time and I don't think those in charge of planning the schemes realised just quite how few OHLE people there were out there and as such just how much training would have to be given to make up the numbers.

[enginelane]

Good to hear but there is a history of running down training at the time that it needs to be sustained and then it's the CBI quote of "skills shortage holding back growth" too many times the expectation is others do the training and then we will buy them in. I

[Edwin_m]

I agree resource scarcity has a lot to do with this.  You can't train up skilled engineers and technicians at the drop of a hat, particularly as there are hardly any with the relevant skills from the last job still around to do the training!  Once again the Scots have shown how to do it, starting with the relatively easy A2B scheme which had the huge advantage of not being on a working railway, doing a few useful infills in the west then moving onto something more challenging in Edinburgh-Glasgow - but still smaller than any of the three schemes further south which were all announced within a few years with no time for the industry to prepare either decent cost estimates or a plan to train and mobilise a workforce. 

 

I don't think this actually affects the rolling stock situation too much.  Great Western frees up a lot of 15x/16x DMUs which are useable on non-electrified routes elsewhere.  Transpennine would only release a few of these classes from Northern locals that use the same route, along with most of Class 185 which are far from life-expired but too heavy and expensive for most other DMU routes.  Midland Main Line electrification frees up precisely zero of classes 150-170, and could only release a handful even with revisions to East Midlands local services.  It would displace class 222, which have at least 20 years remaining life and are even harder to re-deploy than 185s.  In the worst case the small number of HSTs still on the route would have to be upgraded to meet post-2020 regulations, or the trailers replaced by upgraded ones from Western or ECML.  It's also possible some of the 2020 compliance dates could be deferred to avoid expensive work on units with short remaining lives.  So if new DMUs are needed now then they were needed before, and indeed the new Northern franchise is already mandated to procure 120 new self-powered vehicles.  If we see any procurement of long-distance DMUs, this is probably a sign that the deferment is turning into a cancellation. 

 

There are several proposed upgrades to Midland Main Line that aren't directly related to electrification, including doubling south of Kettering, realignment at Market Harborough and quadrupling through Leicester with extra platforms and grade separation at Wigston.  The deferment of electrification doesn't appear to affect these, though I'm not absolutely certain all of them were going ahead anyway as the scheme definition seems a bit vague (part of the problem). 

[Legend]

What we need is a long term view. A sustained program of electrification and other major works, utilising the engineering capacity we have. In this country we seem to have a stop start approach. No electrification for years, experts drifting off into other roles then bang GW, Midland, North Western , Transpennine and EGIP all happening at roughly same time . I'm not overly concerned at this pause if it allows a more coherent long term plan. As someone else set there are parallels in the Astute submarines and indeed in the warship building program in total which also seem to have fits and starts!

[cheesysmith]

The meridians that would have been released from the MML electrification would have been usefully redeployed, specifically as 5 car units on the Liverpool Norwich runs (they have already been used on such occasionally). The extra intermediate coaches could have been redeployed to strengthen the XC fleet, plus virgin have 2 driving cars sat doing nowt. If this had happened, who do you think would have benefitted from the displaced 158?

 

This may only be a "pause" whilst the gov gets in some "experts" to review what is going on with overruns and overspends, but how long before they announce cuts?, or if the "experts" report that faults are due to gov interference, will it be ignored just like the gov's own reports into the IEP costs saga?

[Purley Oaks]

Looking at the colour of Westminster seats in England and the reason for GW electrification and the cancellation of Trans-Pennine becomes clearer...

 

see here: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=picture+of+political+party+seat+in+uk&tbm=isch&imgil=ZBlCBSTw-eT6CM%253A%253BzMyc7hNhuA_6TM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.newstatesman.com%25252Fpolitics%25252F2015%25252F02%25252Fpolitically-uk-now-five-nations&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ZBlCBSTw-eT6CM%253A%252CzMyc7hNhuA_6TM%252C_&biw=1280&bih=639&usg=__3LNpvK--SY3tkrQvIOGuUNGYhFM%3D&ved=0CDsQyjc&ei=EEONVdzPBuqz7ga1oaXgBw#imgrc=ZBlCBSTw-eT6CM%253A%3BzMyc7hNhuA_6TM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.newstatesman.com%252Fsites%252Fdefault%252Ffiles%252Fstyles%252Ffullnode_image%252Fpublic%252Fblogs_2015%252F02%252Fscreen-shot-2015-02-06-at-14.44.31-1024x614.png%253Fitok%253DsYatZ-Fl%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.newstatesman.com%252Fpolitics%252F2015%252F02%252Fpolitically-uk-now-five-nations%3B510%3B348&usg=__3LNpvK--SY3tkrQvIOGuUNGYhFM%3D

 

Mal

[The Stationmaster]

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.

But that is not what has happened is it.  What has happened is that no funds have been cut (at least in any public announcement - and seemingly probably not at all) but GWML electrification is over-running on both timescale and cost as has been known for some considerable time.  Thus it is inevitable if it is to be completed - and there is clearly a political imperative as well as a practical one - then other schemes will fall by the wayside or, as has been said, will be deferred into a later Control Period.

 

I'm also fed up with all the utter nonsense being talked about 'London centric' - the last time I looked Swansea and Cardiff (to name but two places which will receive GWML electrification) were not only some way from London but are actually in a different country.  Passengers on the newly electrified Manchester - Liverpool route might well be getting 'secondhand' trains but so are passengers served by local trains in the Thames Valley, all the way into London.

[Edwin_m]

The meridians that would have been released from the MML electrification would have been usefully redeployed, specifically as 5 car units on the Liverpool Norwich runs (they have already been used on such occasionally). The extra intermediate coaches could have been redeployed to strengthen the XC fleet, plus virgin have 2 driving cars sat doing nowt. If this had happened, who do you think would have benefitted from the displaced 158?

Meridians are not suitable for routine operation on Liverpool-Norwich.  They are very much heavier and more expensive to lease and operate than 158s, and actually slower over much of the route because they are not able to use Sprinter differential speed restrictions and their door cycle time increases dwell times.  A Meridian coach has less passenger space than a 158 coach and the lack of gangways makes it more problematic to split and join at Nottingham. 

 

Although they are superficially similar to Voyagers, I understand the electrical systems are highly incompatible so a lot of work would be needed to transfer coaches between them. 

[The Stationmaster]

I sugest you have a look at some of the cost rises facing the GWML. Quite a lot of those are due to problems encountered when trying to rebuild a InterCity mainline while keeping trains running. The whole advantage of HS2 (and HS1...and all those LGVs in France) is that construction can largely be done without constraints. For example piling work and fitting OHLE can be done during the day (thus making wage bills lower) and mechanised plant doesn't have to be haulled off site so as to allow trains to run during the day. There are no unknown cable runs to hit or unforseen ground conditions (like the grouted embankments that the Stationmaster refered to in one of his posts) to cause issues (and even if problems do occur then they are rarely difficult to resolve.

 

People in this country have a savere defficency when it comes to understanding anything infrastructure related and assume that improving an exsisting asset must be easy simply because its there in the first place. From Motorways to railways to water mains to sewers to pylons - building on a brand new alignment is allways more efficent and costs less when you take into account ALL the extra costs needed to manage users of the exsisting route while upgrades take place. Even many oponants of HS2 recognise this basic fact  - and they have had to move their arguements onto the linespeed chosen for the route or the predicted growth in rail traffic in future decades.

But that is not necessarily the case with GWML.  Unlike the Southern there are plentiful diversionary routes (even if some have been emasculated by past money saving) which means midweek work is possible over a 24 hour day and indeed one midweek closure (between Chippenham and Bath will be starting soon) and they can be timetabled for use over extended periods while east of Reading two-track timetables have been used at weekends to facilitate engineering work for a good 20 years or more and are a near permanent feature of the present timetable (with some seasonal variation).  Equally quite long overnight possessions, every night, are easy on any of the quadruple track sections and that is exactly what is happening and was no doubt what was originally budgetted for (and it would be a disgrace if it wasn't).

 

The problem, it appears, with GWML works is not with the budgetted cost but with the cost (and scheme total time overruns) which are partly down to late equipment delivery, possibly down to expecting too much of some plant, quite likely problems with detailed planning, very definitely acute shortages of not only skilled labour but any kind of labour at all (for example at one point there was even a problem getting enough people to dig holes and trenches - in a  country with 2 million on the dole!).  Signalling work has frequently fallen way behind schedule - no doubt due to similar problems with labour but possibly for other reasons as well.

 

And don't forget some of the (in my view) cock-eyed Rules and Regulations now in place regarding site safety, working at height and over-bureaucratic possession procedures none of which is helped by reliance on 'amateurs' with minimal railway knowledge using possession planning software which isn't for for purpose because most of the geographic data was entered by people without the first idea of railway geography let alone the position of running junctions and how possessions should be protected - RIRO.

 

But in all of that Reading was dealt with on time - so it's not all bad news

[BR(S)]

Branson calling (again) for NR to be broken up and for TOCs to maintain the track: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33281468

[trisonic]

It’s no surprise to me as an outsider that London appears to get more investment (I’d like to see a per capita figure).

 

Greater London’s population (who use the railways the most) is 8,417,000 - which is more than the populations of Wales and Scotland added together.

The next largest city in the UK is Birmingham at just over 1,000,000.

 

I have commuted for a time into London and it is generally so hell-like that it is incomprehensible to anyone who has not tried it.

 

Best, Pete.

[jamie92208]

For the past few months Roger Ford has been banging the drum about lack of signalling design engineers due to decisions made by Railtrack which stopped recruitment and training. It is probably the same with OHLE engineers.  Yet again we are reaping the whirlwind created by past decisions just as has been pointed out above regarding the submarine construction programme.  The first Astute was very late and very much over budget but the production run is doing well now that design changes have been introduced to make it easier to produce in quantity. Hopefully the same mistakes won't be made with the trident replacement boats.

 

It is obviously going to take time to train OHLE and signalling design engineers, but if what I see from these announcements are correct, all that is going to happen is that the two later big schemes are delayed somewhat in order that they can be phased and planned properly.   Certainly the Trans Pennine one has to some extent been overtaken by the HS3 proposals and it would be foolish to press ahead with it until the detailed proposals for HS3 have at lest been presented to parliament as it appears that much of HS3 will be upgrades to existing lines.   Certainly, and I hope that this  doesn't appear to be too cynical, I will be lobbying my new MP, who is of the blue colour, to ensure that the Trans Pennine scheme goes forward.

 

Jamie

[jamie92208]

It’s no surprise to me as an outsider that London appears to get more investment (I’d like to see a per capita figure).

 

Greater London’s population (who use the railways the most) is 8,417,000 - which is more than the populations of Wales and Scotland added together.

The next largest city in the UK is Birmingham at just over 1,000,000.

 

I have commuted for a time into London and it is generally so hell-like that it is incomprehensible to anyone who has not tried it.

 

Best, Pete.

I'm not certain but there is some political dynamite in the per capita figures.  IIRC for London it is over £1k but below £2 in the Newcastle area with Manchester better than West Yorks.

 

Jamie

[Mike Storey]

Sorry but I don't buy it. There HAS been electrification work going on throughout the '90's and 2000's - Leeds First completion, ECML strengthening schemes, a number of new schemes in Scotland, North London Line expansion, GE rolling replacement of Mark 1 by Mark 3b, Heathrow Express and CTRL and a number of infill schemes. None of these are on the scale of the current schemes, granted, but the expertise and experience necessary to plan them is there, if not the engineering staff to plan the detail and get the work done - I well understand that shortage. We had the same shortages when doing the ECML and Leeds First, and had to bring back people from retirement to get OLE work back on programme for the Olympics. We have never had enough sparkys.

 

I worked with some seriously good project managers and directors, both specialist and multi-disciplined, throughout my time on the railways. The key problem was always (I can't really think of an exception) signalling, especially new control systems, integration and immunisation. Maybe the French got it right, when, instead of trying to invent new systems and kit, they just kept building the same thing over and over again for their LGV's and their classic route upgrades, with just incremental improvements each time. They got into trouble only really where they had to do something new or different. They may now have some of the least technically advanced lines in Europe, and are appallingly inefficient and can't run or maintain properly what they've got for toffee, but at least they did build them.

[The Stationmaster]

Heathrow Express eletctrification works (I believe including detail design) was carried by by a French company although I'm fairly sure the basic structure design for masts etc wasn't in their hands.  The UK electrification people I met at one CTRL meeting (when I was working for a signal engineering company) were living in a time warp and clearly hadn't got a clue about the design (it was in respect of neutral sections in that particular instance, they kept rattling on about the position of the magnets  ) so I don't know what they did design for that scheme?

[St. Simon]

For the past few months Roger Ford has been banging the drum about lack of signalling design engineers due to decisions made by Railtrack which stopped recruitment and training. It is probably the same with OHLE engineers.  Yet again we are reaping the whirlwind created by past decisions just as has been pointed out above regarding the submarine construction programme.  The first Astute was very late and very much over budget but the production run is doing well now that design changes have been introduced to make it easier to produce in quantity. Hopefully the same mistakes won't be made with the trident replacement boats.

 

It is obviously going to take time to train OHLE and signalling design engineers, but if what I see from these announcements are correct, all that is going to happen is that the two later big schemes are delayed somewhat in order that they can be phased and planned properly.   Certainly the Trans Pennine one has to some extent been overtaken by the HS3 proposals and it would be foolish to press ahead with it until the detailed proposals for HS3 have at lest been presented to parliament as it appears that much of HS3 will be upgrades to existing lines.   Certainly, and I hope that this  doesn't appear to be too cynical, I will be lobbying my new MP, who is of the blue colour, to ensure that the Trans Pennine scheme goes forward.

 

Jamie

 

(My Bold)

 

Hi,

 

As you'll see from my signature, I am a trainee signalling designer for Network Rail, I am one of 12 take on in September 2014, with several taken on the year before (I can't remember the exact number), there will be 2 new trainee's per design office in Network Rail per year for the next few years, plus an equal number of testing and commissioing engineer trainee's. I myself will also be trained in basic testing and commissioning later in the summer.

 

There is equal investment in trainee track and (I believe) OLE design engineers.

 

I hope that this clears up that Network Rail are serious about getting young design engineers on board and making a difference to these projects, I myself have done design work on several large (and a couple of small) projects in  the few months I have been in SDG.

 

Simon

[Fenman]

I'm not certain but there is some political dynamite in the per capita figures.  IIRC for London it is over £1k but below £2 in the Newcastle area with Manchester better than West Yorks.

 

Yes, the per capita figures look terrible, but they do not represent the real issue: London is growing, massively fast, adding population at such a rate that it is the equivalent of adding on a new big city every few years. The other English cities are not growing at anywhere near the same pace and, in absolute numbers, for most of them the growth is minuscule (a few thousands, to London's hundreds of thousands).

 

We know that London's transport network is already operating at or very near capacity. So the comparison that needs to be done between London and the rest is investment per head of increased population.

 

If you did what was implied by your post - had the same per capita investment in every city, irrespective of growth or loss of population - the English cities other than London would not be able to fit in all the transport infrastructure they would have to build, and nor would there be enough people to ride on it.

 

And no, I don't live in London.

 

Paul