Northern Powerhouse? Unlikely if this is true.

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting ideas Mike. The issue in 1981 was that BR had two routes between Manchester and Sheffield but not enough traffic to justify both (with the other Trans-Pennine routes further north). Given that only one of the routes still had a passenger service, that route also directly served Sheffield Midland and a major freight customer (the cement works at Hope) the Midland was always going to be the winner. It does seem wrong that an electrified main line was closed but I'm not sure BR had any choice in the circumstances of the time.

 

Exactly so.  The Hope Valley route had intermediate traffic potential which didn't exist via Woodhead.  Plus it had the advantage of leading to the station in Sheffield which offered the greatest variety other routes and the ability to concentrate as much traffic as possible onto a single city centre station at minimal cost when it came to any new connections.  So passenger traffic wise. Victoria was inevitably going to lose out to Midland at the Sheffield end and as far as freight was concerned the Hope Valley offered an intermediate large customer while most of what went over Woodhead was either going to be lost (because it no longer existed) or could be diverted via other routes.

 

Sorry but the magnificence of Woodhead didn't save it and its ageing electrification system which had become non-standard didn't help either in the eyes of many within BR.

[31A]

Before I retired from the railway (4 years ago) there were plans for some upgrading of the Hope Valley route such as reinstating the second line through Dore junction (and second platform at Dore station), signalling alterations and longer freight loops.  I was always given to understand that freight paths on this line precluded an hourly stopping service unless these upgrades were carried out (it also carries 1 x TPE and 1 x EMT non stop per hour).  I think the upgrades were planned for CP5 but as far as I know none of them have happened so I'm not sure how it has been possible to introduce an hourly stopping service.  Unless this is a case of a 'Franchise Commitment' being agreed without the Infrastructure Authority (Network Rail) being consulted (or no longer knowing why it's never happened in the past)?   There seem to be a lot of 'service enhancements' planned (and not only in the North) without considering whether the infrastructure can accommodate them, and no plans to increase capacity to do so, or at least not before the 'enhancements' are planned to be introduced.

[Mike Storey]

Before I retired from the railway (4 years ago) there were plans for some upgrading of the Hope Valley route such as reinstating the second line through Dore junction (and second platform at Dore station), signalling alterations and longer freight loops.  I was always given to understand that freight paths on this line precluded an hourly stopping service unless these upgrades were carried out (it also carries 1 x TPE and 1 x EMT non stop per hour).  I think the upgrades were planned for CP5 but as far as I know none of them have happened so I'm not sure how it has been possible to introduce an hourly stopping service.  Unless this is a case of a 'Franchise Commitment' being agreed without the Infrastructure Authority (Network Rail) being consulted (or no longer knowing why it's never happened in the past)?   There seem to be a lot of 'service enhancements' planned (and not only in the North) without considering whether the infrastructure can accommodate them, and no plans to increase capacity to do so, or at least not before the 'enhancements' are planned to be introduced.

 

You will find the current status and description of the Dore Junction scheme on pages 10 and 11 of the attached. Incidentally, the scheme originated as a concept in the 1990's and I was tasked, working for RT but directed by the SRA, as client, to develop it to GRIP 2. It made the Top 20 list of schemes which they were prepared to fund through to GRIP 4, but whilst we were underway, their funding was slashed, and this scheme dropped off the list. Good to see it back. It appears to be held up only by awaiting the outcome of a Transport and Works Act order.

 

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Enhancement-Delivery-Plan-.pdf

 

This status report also shows what is currently planned for the Trans-Pennine Upgrade works, both short term, and for those matters awaiting further decisions by DfT and Northern Powerhouse, amongst others. Page 50 onwards. These are summaries, so you would have to search the individual projects for nay more detail, which is often difficult in terms of an up to date report available publicly. One thing that puzzles me is the mention of capacity improvements in the Garforth area and at Micklefield Jn on a schematic on Page 50, but then no further mention of it (as far as I have noticed - maybe someone else can spot it?) but Micklefield is detailed further on.

 

There is a further, updated edition of this report due out during December, which means I guess it will not be available publicly until the New Year. A lot of the schemes shown have not been updated since March, according to the text.

['CHARD]

....once you get to Leeds the two track "viaduct" out towards Neville Hill seems to be missing from any discussions. Obviously DaFT haven't got that far in their thought process.

 

During the bidding process for the present Northern franchise, the Neville Hill bottleneck was the critical weakness, and blocker of increasing services in that direction.  Whereas dialogue with the NW Zone demonstrated that promised route enhancements were being progressed and actioned, to the point where assumptions could be embodied in the bid, to increase services into and around Manchester (as history has now demonstrated, things didn't turn out too well), the NE Zone representatives basically shrugged their collective shoulders, and said 'we don't know what to do about the Leeds eastern constraint.'  So NR hadn't progressed anything much beyond GRIP 2 in that direction, and thus DfT hadn't/ haven't been presented with anything workable to mess about with.  The settlement for CP6 is not built up the same way as previous periods either, so nothing will be listed in DfT's commitments to address this trouble spot, unless and until someone devises a solution and costs it.

 

With my tongue very firmly in my cheek, I imagine that DaFT think that there must be a 'digital solution' for the route into Leeds from the Neville Hill direction. 

 

Your tongue may not be so much in cheek as you think.  There may be a push to 'digitize' that part of railway to find a way through the capacity growth challenge in the medium term.

[woodenhead]

Exactly so.  The Hope Valley route had intermediate traffic potential which didn't exist via Woodhead.  Plus it had the advantage of leading to the station in Sheffield which offered the greatest variety other routes and the ability to concentrate as much traffic as possible onto a single city centre station at minimal cost when it came to any new connections.  So passenger traffic wise. Victoria was inevitably going to lose out to Midland at the Sheffield end and as far as freight was concerned the Hope Valley offered an intermediate large customer while most of what went over Woodhead was either going to be lost (because it no longer existed) or could be diverted via other routes.

 

Sorry but the magnificence of Woodhead didn't save it and its ageing electrification system which had become non-standard didn't help either in the eyes of many within BR.

Careful, there are plenty of Woodhead Conspiracy theorists that would say the locomotives and the power was not ageing and it was all a plan to hand the line to the National Grid and the Roads agencies.

[Reorte]

Before I retired from the railway (4 years ago) there were plans for some upgrading of the Hope Valley route such as reinstating the second line through Dore junction (and second platform at Dore station), signalling alterations and longer freight loops.

I assumed something was still happening there, last time I went through there were what looked like new (not recovered) bits of track and pointwork components lying around at Edale and (IIRC) Hathersage.The Edale bits could be removals from the long-disused sidings I suppose but like I said they looked newish, and I don't think there's been anything at Hathersage for a very long time. I suppose both could just be access points for more routine renewals somewhere else on the line?

[31A]

You will find the current status and description of the Dore Junction scheme on pages 10 and 11 of the attached. Incidentally, the scheme originated as a concept in the 1990's and I was tasked, working for RT but directed by the SRA, as client, to develop it to GRIP 2. It made the Top 20 list of schemes which they were prepared to fund through to GRIP 4, but whilst we were underway, their funding was slashed, and this scheme dropped off the list. Good to see it back. It appears to be held up only by awaiting the outcome of a Transport and Works Act order.

 

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Enhancement-Delivery-Plan-.pdf

 

This status report also shows what is currently planned for the Trans-Pennine Upgrade works, both short term, and for those matters awaiting further decisions by DfT and Northern Powerhouse, amongst others. Page 50 onwards. These are summaries, so you would have to search the individual projects for nay more detail, which is often difficult in terms of an up to date report available publicly. One thing that puzzles me is the mention of capacity improvements in the Garforth area and at Micklefield Jn on a schematic on Page 50, but then no further mention of it (as far as I have noticed - maybe someone else can spot it?) but Micklefield is detailed further on.

 

There is a further, updated edition of this report due out during December, which means I guess it will not be available publicly until the New Year. A lot of the schemes shown have not been updated since March, according to the text.

 

Thank you, Mike.  It is a weighty document, but like you I can see no mention of enhancements in the Garforth area, neither have I heard of any suggested.  The only potential change I've read of in that area is a suggestion of another station between there and Cross Gates, where substantial residential / commercial development is taking place, but that would exacerbate the problem rather than solve it!  Possibly something could be done with the signalling to improve headways?  I can confirm that the Micklefield works have been, and are being, carried out in line with the time scale given.

 

During the bidding process for the present Northern franchise, the Neville Hill bottleneck was the critical weakness, and blocker of increasing services in that direction.  Whereas dialogue with the NW Zone demonstrated that promised route enhancements were being progressed and actioned, to the point where assumptions could be embodied in the bid, to increase services into and around Manchester (as history has now demonstrated, things didn't turn out too well), the NE Zone representatives basically shrugged their collective shoulders, and said 'we don't know what to do about the Leeds eastern constraint.'  So NR hadn't progressed anything much beyond GRIP 2 in that direction, and thus DfT hadn't/ haven't been presented with anything workable to mess about with.  The settlement for CP6 is not built up the same way as previous periods either, so nothing will be listed in DfT's commitments to address this trouble spot, unless and until someone devises a solution and costs it.

 

 

Your tongue may not be so much in cheek as you think.  There may be a push to 'digitize' that part of railway to find a way through the capacity growth challenge in the medium term.

 

 

There were often suggestions that reinstating the middle roads through Cross Gates station would be an easy way of providing an 'overtaking' facility but as far as I know they were never progressed officially.  If the example of work carried out elsewhere in Europe (Berlin, Brussels) was followed, it would probably be possible to cantilever additional running lines off the Leeds East viaduct section, without having to take too much land to do it.  In any case quadrupling the viaduct section would be cheaper and less disruptive than what was done at Borough Market, but this is Yorkshire .... 

[woodenhead]

Without knowing the full reasoning for the gaps in electrification on the Stalybridge to Leeds portion of the route I can see how it would be better to retain the tunnels without wires but able to take multi-modals than to wire them so passenger trains can run electric all the way.

 

Whilst the long term plan must be to eliminate diesel locomotives, it has to be offset that against the fact only DRS has purchased any new electric locomotives and not many of them.  There are more than enough class 66s about with a reasonable life left in them to say that freight companies probably want paths more than wires are present.

 

Class 802 Bi-modes will be fine for the fast passenger services and Northern has it's new DMUs as well.

 

The alternative may be years of rebuilding tunnels and the disruption that will come.

 

That from a Northerner.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Perhaps DaFT HQ should be moved up to just North of Leeds?

Baz

 

Like they'll ever find the office if that happens!

 

Mike.

[cheesysmith]

I have to say that it will never happen, but reopening the woodhead would make sense for freight, as well as improved passenger service between sheffield and manchester. Looking at the timings for the biomass across the pennines from manchester to drax, you could easily cut a hour off the timings via the Woodhead. And if the bridge where the Sheffield parkway was rebuilt to remove the centre pillar, a curve could be laid to allow direct access to Sheffield midland. Having walked the entire route, the curves are gentle, and the speed limit of 60mph was introduced to make pathing freights and passengers easier. Also, when the EM-2s were sold to NS, they had a test run to prove they were in working order, and speeds in excess of 90mph were seen, but never officially recorded.

 

Also, there is a limit to the improvements the hope valley line can do, and would not be able to support big high cube containers due to little problems like cowburn tunnel has a geological fault line half way along it. BR and its successors have spent a lot of monies keeping this line open over the years, and on the tunnels on the route. But the old tunnel has had nothing spent on it for years.

[woodenhead]

I have to say that it will never happen, but reopening the woodhead would make sense for freight, as well as improved passenger service between sheffield and manchester. Looking at the timings for the biomass across the pennines from manchester to drax, you could easily cut a hour off the timings via the Woodhead. And if the bridge where the Sheffield parkway was rebuilt to remove the centre pillar, a curve could be laid to allow direct access to Sheffield midland. Having walked the entire route, the curves are gentle, and the speed limit of 60mph was introduced to make pathing freights and passengers easier. Also, when the EM-2s were sold to NS, they had a test run to prove they were in working order, and speeds in excess of 90mph were seen, but never officially recorded.

 

Also, there is a limit to the improvements the hope valley line can do, and would not be able to support big high cube containers due to little problems like cowburn tunnel has a geological fault line half way along it. BR and its successors have spent a lot of monies keeping this line open over the years, and on the tunnels on the route. But the old tunnel has had nothing spent on it for years.

The sheer cost of it would be prohibitive and would include a new or rebored Woodhead tunnel, freight paths are not so time critical that shaving an hour off would be a driver for a new route through Woodhead.

[jjb1970]

At the risk of rocking the boat and being an odd one out here I don't primarily blame policians for the current debacle of major programs. The money was made available and programs approved followed by them going woefully over budget and facing huge delays. I don't know how much of it was DafT completely failing to understand resource constraints and program risk, and how much was down to inadequate program management by NR but the net result is billions squandered, programs deferred, others facing cuts to cut costs, further delays etc. I am sure that there are good reasons for some of these issues and equally sure some are down to management failures. If it was your money (and it is if you pay taxes) would you be happy to just keep throwing money at these programs in the hope that eventually it will all start working? Politically I think that there was a major mistake in approving a major spending spree at the turn of the last decade and subsequent transport ministers have inherited a complete mess. The unfortunate consequences are that the lost value of wasted money is already having a baleful effect and it will be a lot harder to persuade a government to fund future major upgrades.

[mdvle]

While I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I would not be so quick to eliminate the politicians (and the voting public) from the blame.

 

It is the politicians and the public, who are so obsessed with phrases like "value for money" and getting things cheap that results in projects having unrealistically low budgets with impossible timeframes because that is the only way to get the project approved in the first place.  If there was more of an acceptance that these necessary projects will both be expensive and take time then many of the perceived problems disappear.

 

But as long as governments try to fit programs into election cycles, and insist on a feast / famine cycle of funding, these problems and the issues facing the rail network will continue.

[woodenhead]

At the risk of rocking the boat and being an odd one out here I don't primarily blame policians for the current debacle of major programs. The money was made available and programs approved followed by them going woefully over budget and facing huge delays. I don't know how much of it was DafT completely failing to understand resource constraints and program risk, and how much was down to inadequate program management by NR but the net result is billions squandered, programs deferred, others facing cuts to cut costs, further delays etc. I am sure that there are good reasons for some of these issues and equally sure some are down to management failures. If it was your money (and it is if you pay taxes) would you be happy to just keep throwing money at these programs in the hope that eventually it will all start working? Politically I think that there was a major mistake in approving a major spending spree at the turn of the last decade and subsequent transport ministers have inherited a complete mess. The unfortunate consequences are that the lost value of wasted money is already having a baleful effect and it will be a lot harder to persuade a government to fund future major upgrades.

The £1.4bn black hole in the once on time and on budget Crossrail is probably all the evidence you need that control went wrong somewhere  - who hid this from who as it's not some slight overspend I suspect you can't blame it all the Cross Rail project team, where was the oversight of spending and progress that would have quickly identified something was awry.

[cheesysmith]

But this would support the reopening of the woodhead. The hs1 was a virgin railway, just like the woodhead would be, and came in on buget/time

[jjb1970]

While I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I would not be so quick to eliminate the politicians (and the voting public) from the blame.

 

It is the politicians and the public, who are so obsessed with phrases like "value for money" and getting things cheap that results in projects having unrealistically low budgets with impossible timeframes because that is the only way to get the project approved in the first place.  If there was more of an acceptance that these necessary projects will both be expensive and take time then many of the perceived problems disappear.

 

But as long as governments try to fit programs into election cycles, and insist on a feast / famine cycle of funding, these problems and the issues facing the rail network will continue.

 

I don't exonerate the politicians, but ultimately somebody costed these programs and did the assessment that the budgets were appropriate. There is nothing wrong with demanding value for money, what is wrong is manipulating budgets to meet arbitrary pre-determined thresholds as part of a gaming exercise. If anything that actually detracts from value for money. I really do think that the secretary of state for transport at the time some of these programs were green lighted has an awful lot to answer for but ultimately they are completely reliant on their allegedly expert advisers at DafT and NR (and various consultants). In the case of GWML electrification I don't think it was so much a budgetary issue as much as poor management and some rather unfortunate project planning (or lack of).

 

What this does highlight is the lack of accountability. We get into this circular argument where the government will blame DafT, DafT will blame NR, NR will blame various contractors and the by inference the government and DafT and the whole thing just seems to turn into a silly circular process where everybody is to blame at the same time as nobody is apparently accountable for anything. Power without accountability is never a good thing. Government ministers aren't held to account (primarily because an incompetent opposition is so intent on scoring cheap points it fails to take the kick at gaping open goals), DafT aren't held to account despite being the principal source of problems and it appears that the higher leadership of NR aren't really held to account either.

[Arun Sharma]

But this would support the reopening of the woodhead. The hs1 was a virgin railway, just like the woodhead would be, and came in on buget/time

Regarding Biomass trains, a recent Railway Magazine article [2-3 months ago] suggested support from the biomass folk for reinstitution of the Colne-Skipton line as that was another way of dramatically cutting those trans-pennine timings. Given, additionally, the amount of local and central political support for SELRAP, that might well come off.

[locoholic]

At the risk of rocking the boat and being an odd one out here I don't primarily blame policians for the current debacle of major programs. The money was made available and programs approved followed by them going woefully over budget and facing huge delays. I don't know how much of it was DafT completely failing to understand resource constraints and program risk, and how much was down to inadequate program management by NR but the net result is billions squandered, programs deferred, others facing cuts to cut costs, further delays etc. I am sure that there are good reasons for some of these issues and equally sure some are down to management failures. If it was your money (and it is if you pay taxes) would you be happy to just keep throwing money at these programs in the hope that eventually it will all start working? Politically I think that there was a major mistake in approving a major spending spree at the turn of the last decade and subsequent transport ministers have inherited a complete mess. The unfortunate consequences are that the lost value of wasted money is already having a baleful effect and it will be a lot harder to persuade a government to fund future major upgrades.

It's a 21st Century version of the 1955 BR Modernisation Plan.

[Mike Storey]

 it appears that the higher leadership of NR aren't really held to account either.

 

Seriously??! The ineffectual Parry-Jones was "retired" after just three years, to bring in the far more dynamic Peter Hendy as Chairman. Then, a month or two after Hendy said Mark Carne was going nowhere, he was "retired". There was huge speculation in both cases that they were pushed, but of course never admitted, as these things usually go. It was reported that none of the Executive Grade managers in NR got a bonus last year, and I recall a much reduced one the year before. I don't know of any sackings below Board level, as these would not usually be public knowledge, but I have certainly seen different names crop up in charge of a few major programmes, that I had not seen before in those positions in the last few years. Whether that was due to retirement or some other innocuous reason, of the previous occupant, I don't know, but given the age of one or two (whom were there when I was still in the industry) and the fact I have not seen their names crop up elsewhere, I suspect not.

 

As for NR incompetence, well, GWIP does them no favours (as do a few others), but, as the Hendy Report showed (and as does the quarterly update on all major projects from NR direct), around 90% of all projects are completed on time and on budget, or near as dammit (where there has not been an arbitrary decision to postpone them into the new funding Control Period). That the much praised Crossrail project can fall rapidly into such disrepute, where NR's side of things has been pretty well done, and the huge delays to the Jubilee Line upgrade, plus other non-railway schemes, shows that the problem is far wider than "Network Rail". But what is of note, when people compare current NR performance to how well BR did things (if you choose to accept that - I don't recall it as rosy as that at all), is that NR are attempting to undertake over three times the amount of enhancements work, concurrently, as well as considerably greater levels of renewals, than BR did, certainly from the 1970's onwards.

 

What we do not appear to have seen, are any significant changes at the helm of the DfT over the past several years, despite their world collapsing around themselves, and there I absolutely agree with you.

[caradoc]

Some very good points Mike.

 

It should also perhaps be borne in mind that although electrifying Manchester/Preston/Blackpool was talked about in BR times, it was never actually achieved. At the moment NR is, or has just finished, installing OLE in Central Scotland, North West England, on the GW and Midland Main Lines, as well as renewing equipment elsewhere such as on the Great Eastern. It is of course very disappointing when such projects do not finish on time, or even worse are scaled back dramatically such as on the GWML, but there is a huge amount of work going on, which in some ways is a legacy of what BR was unable to do.

[The Stationmaster]

I have to say that it will never happen, but reopening the woodhead would make sense for freight, as well as improved passenger service between sheffield and manchester. Looking at the timings for the biomass across the pennines from manchester to drax, you could easily cut a hour off the timings via the Woodhead. And if the bridge where the Sheffield parkway was rebuilt to remove the centre pillar, a curve could be laid to allow direct access to Sheffield midland. Having walked the entire route, the curves are gentle, and the speed limit of 60mph was introduced to make pathing freights and passengers easier. Also, when the EM-2s were sold to NS, they had a test run to prove they were in working order, and speeds in excess of 90mph were seen, but never officially recorded.

 

Also, there is a limit to the improvements the hope valley line can do, and would not be able to support big high cube containers due to little problems like cowburn tunnel has a geological fault line half way along it. BR and its successors have spent a lot of monies keeping this line open over the years, and on the tunnels on the route. But the old tunnel has had nothing spent on it for years.

 

All depends which port gets the contract for handling biomass for Drax doesn't it?  Some years ago I was involved a discussion with the planning people in Port of Tyne in respect of the terminal they were planning to handle biomass for Drax.  Going back into my BR days I was involved in confidential discussions with CEGB about the port they were selecting to handle imported coal for DIdcot - I ruled out their first option although they also had problems with teh site, we did quite a lot of physical planning work (including track layout and signalling plans for the next site they selected but finally they went to a third site.

 

There are all sorts of factors in play when it comes to handling cargo, especially bulk cargo, through ports and getting it to ultimate destination and any one of them can suddenly shoot down a surefire scheme.  If the rail network doesn't have the capacity to get biomass in the required quantities from a port in the north west to Drax at a suitable price then other ports and rail routes (in addition to the two they were considering some years ago) will come into play at some time.

[The Stationmaster]

What price money for any sort of 'powerhouse' when it has now been announced that the opening of Crossrail will be delayed indefinitely and that it will, on the most optimistic estimates, require a further £1.3 - £1.7 billion more than the additional cost already announced?

[jjb1970]

Seriously??! The ineffectual Parry-Jones was "retired" after just three years, to bring in the far more dynamic Peter Hendy as Chairman. Then, a month or two after Hendy said Mark Carne was going nowhere, he was "retired". There was huge speculation in both cases that they were pushed, but of course never admitted, as these things usually go. It was reported that none of the Executive Grade managers in NR got a bonus last year, and I recall a much reduced one the year before. I don't know of any sackings below Board level, as these would not usually be public knowledge, but I have certainly seen different names crop up in charge of a few major programmes, that I had not seen before in those positions in the last few years. Whether that was due to retirement or some other innocuous reason, of the previous occupant, I don't know, but given the age of one or two (whom were there when I was still in the industry) and the fact I have not seen their names crop up elsewhere, I suspect not.

 

As for NR incompetence, well, GWIP does them no favours (as do a few others), but, as the Hendy Report showed (and as does the quarterly update on all major projects from NR direct), around 90% of all projects are completed on time and on budget, or near as dammit (where there has not been an arbitrary decision to postpone them into the new funding Control Period). That the much praised Crossrail project can fall rapidly into such disrepute, where NR's side of things has been pretty well done, and the huge delays to the Jubilee Line upgrade, plus other non-railway schemes, shows that the problem is far wider than "Network Rail". But what is of note, when people compare current NR performance to how well BR did things (if you choose to accept that - I don't recall it as rosy as that at all), is that NR are attempting to undertake over three times the amount of enhancements work, concurrently, as well as considerably greater levels of renewals, than BR did, certainly from the 1970's onwards.

 

What we do not appear to have seen, are any significant changes at the helm of the DfT over the past several years, despite their world collapsing around themselves, and there I absolutely agree with you.

 

Saying 90% of NR projects are on time and budget is like saying the Titanic had completed a successful crossing of the Atlantic before it hit an ice berg and sank. The problem programs are major ones whose budget and time over runs will have a baleful effect on rail spending, the credibility of the railways and future operations as we end up with part electrified lines and longer term reliance on dual mode trains. GWML electrification has not gone according to plan (to be kind about it), MML electrification has gone down the tubes, it appears that the “Northern Powerhouse” idea may be following, Crossrail apparently noticed it was running seriously late and needed another couple of billion quid at pretty much the last minute and that’s without getting into the less visible debacles like IEP procurement (a splendid job by DafT). I’d hope it would be a given that NR senior management are going without bonuses, I really don’t see much sign of accountability there and none at all at DafT. For whatever reason DafT and NR are not delivering these major programs, I think they do deliver smaller ongoing network maintenance and upgrades well enough but when it comes to major programs like GWML electrification it’s been a complete mess. And it seems nobody is responsible for the ongoing failures, for example has anybody at DafT been held to account for failing to get a derogation on OH line clearances? The whole thing has become a circular merrygoround where everybody blames somebody else.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 The whole thing has become a circular merrygoround where everybody blames somebody else.

 

When my wife moved from private practice to the public sector a senior colleague, who had moved the other way some years previously, gave her this advice.

 

"Try to avoid making any decisions. If you can not avoid making a decision, make sure that you do it in such a way that someone else takes responsibility when it goes wrong".

[Mike Storey]

What price money for any sort of 'powerhouse' when it has now been announced that the opening of Crossrail will be delayed indefinitely and that it will, on the most optimistic estimates, require a further £1.3 - £1.7 billion more than the additional cost already announced?

 

I get your point Mike, but in that case, London council tax payers and business rate payers will have to foot the bill for the extra costs (even though HMG may lend the necessary pro tem), so it really has no financial effect on any scheme outside London, but it may halt some other TfL schemes for some years..