GWML Electification

[locoholic]

Some posts above have extrapolated my argument way beyond its meaning. I never said that because my transport needs aren't met by the railway, then the UK doesn't need a railway network - that would be absurd. But it is a fact that the economics of transport infrastructure provision have changed completely since the rail network was originally built. Even the main parts of the London Underground were built by private capital - what are the chances of a new privately-owned & financed tube line now?! So new lines or upgrades require public subsidy, and therefore have to compete for spending with the NHS, education, armed forces, anti-terrorism, etc, etc. in a country where even weak economic growth is only coming from population growth, rather than increased productivity.

 

Worryingly, the trend is for new projects to cost more and more as safety and environmental costs increase, so I wonder if we're approaching a point where big rail projects are becoming just too "difficult", in the same way that new large-scale electricity generating capacity in the UK seems to be (or an expansion of airport capacity near London). And, like it or not, away from London & a couple of other major conurbations, you could scrap train services tomorrow, and life would not grind to a standstill. Despite all the noise, Plymouth & Cornwall managed OK whilst the line at Dawlish was out of action, & at the moment, "OK" seems to be the best we can afford

 

You could even scrap rail freight, since nearly 90% of freight is already on the roads (I don't believe that the recent growth in rail freight will be sustained - quite the reverse, in fact, given what's happening to power stations & the steel industry). Even a relatively small project like doubling the line to Felixstowe seems to be too difficult to achieve. It is in this context that Network Rail's performance has to be judged, and their performance with the GWML electrification is pretty lamentable. In the end, I think it will be regarded as pretty poor value for money for the UK as a whole, which will have a very negative impact when similar schemes are proposed in the future.

[phil-b259]

In the end, I think it will be regarded as pretty poor value for money for the UK as a whole, which will have a very negative impact when similar schemes are proposed in the future.

 

And your solution is???

 

Railtrack Mk2

Vertical integration (impossible under EU law and opposed by the FOCs)

'Deep Alliances' (despite the one between NR & SWT being dissolved by mutual contestant as not working well enough to keep going)

Nationalisation (and being even more under the thumb of HM Treasury)

 

Yes Network Rail has its problems - nobody is saying they don't*, but it does lots of good work on a day to day basis - fixing broken rails, repairing 1970s vintage signalling equipment handling far more trains than it was designed for etc. That may not be 'sexy' compared to major projects but its what allows London and other large conurbations to function on a daily basis and that should not be ignored in favour if of the media spin / Political ideology or populist sentiment that insist its NR is useless.

 

* The much praised 'Private sector' companies are not immune to big screw ups - have a look at lots of retailers over the past decade and its easy to find plenty of examples of bad decisions made by management - yet the company still caries on. Alternatively look at the city financial sector and just how much money had to b spent propping up ostensibly private companies which continue to trade today.

[St. Simon]

* The much praised 'Private sector' companies are not immune to big screw ups

To try and bring it back to topic, it was Signalling Solutions, a privately owned company, was basically responsibly for the overrun at Paddington last Christmas.

 

Simon

[locoholic]

And your solution is???

 

I'm afraid I don't have one, just like those responsible for electricity generation, airports, migration, etc. etc don't appear to know what to do. I'm not even convinced that there is a solution in the current conditions - not every problem has a solution.

 

I'm sure that Network Rail is full of highly motivated and competent staff. The fact that the rail network is so safe would confirm this.

 

My concern is that over the last few decades, modernising the rail network has become more and more costly, complex and problematic, and that trend is simply not sustainable in the UK of the 21st century. I would love to be proved wrong, but nothing I've read on this thread look like that will happen any time soon.

[m0rris]

And there's the unfortunate truth, possibly as a result of fracturing our former state owned giants, possibly as a result of political interferance, we've got a situation where some pretty significant chunks of our national infastructure is lurching towards crisis.

 

Whilst there are clearly some problem areas at Network Rail, we'd be doing much worse if we chucked the whole thing out again. Afterall, we're still feeling the hangover of Railtrack and some of NRs recent poor decision making (everyone move to Milton Keynes etc), what we must avoid is isolating and excluding the people left who know what they are doing!

[Fat Controller]

I'm afraid I don't have one, just like those responsible for electricity generation, airports, migration, etc. etc don't appear to know what to do. I'm not even convinced that there is a solution in the current conditions - not every problem has a solution.

 

I'm sure that Network Rail is full of highly motivated and competent staff. The fact that the rail network is so safe would confirm this.

 

My concern is that over the last few decades, modernising the rail network has become more and more costly, complex and problematic, and that trend is simply not sustainable in the UK of the 21st century. I would love to be proved wrong, but nothing I've read on this thread look like that will happen any time soon.

I suspect it's not only modernising the railway network that has become more costly, complex and problematic, but a great deal of other infrastructure (and general construction) as well. In the Sheppey area of Kent, for example, a major water pipe sprang a big leak about a week ago, causing the partial collapse of a busy road. Estimates for the repair are in the region of a month or so. 

[Mike Storey]

Some posts above have extrapolated my argument way beyond its meaning. I never said that because my transport needs aren't met by the railway, then the UK doesn't need a railway network - that would be absurd. But it is a fact that the economics of transport infrastructure provision have changed completely since the rail network was originally built. Even the main parts of the London Underground were built by private capital - what are the chances of a new privately-owned & financed tube line now?! So new lines or upgrades require public subsidy, and therefore have to compete for spending with the NHS, education, armed forces, anti-terrorism, etc, etc. in a country where even weak economic growth is only coming from population growth, rather than increased productivity.

 

Worryingly, the trend is for new projects to cost more and more as safety and environmental costs increase, so I wonder if we're approaching a point where big rail projects are becoming just too "difficult", in the same way that new large-scale electricity generating capacity in the UK seems to be (or an expansion of airport capacity near London). And, like it or not, away from London & a couple of other major conurbations, you could scrap train services tomorrow, and life would not grind to a standstill. Despite all the noise, Plymouth & Cornwall managed OK whilst the line at Dawlish was out of action, & at the moment, "OK" seems to be the best we can afford

 

You could even scrap rail freight, since nearly 90% of freight is already on the roads (I don't believe that the recent growth in rail freight will be sustained - quite the reverse, in fact, given what's happening to power stations & the steel industry). Even a relatively small project like doubling the line to Felixstowe seems to be too difficult to achieve. It is in this context that Network Rail's performance has to be judged, and their performance with the GWML electrification is pretty lamentable. In the end, I think it will be regarded as pretty poor value for money for the UK as a whole, which will have a very negative impact when similar schemes are proposed in the future.

 

I can see where you are coming from, as regards public perception of VFM, but I believe you are drawing national conclusions from one regional project that has run into some troubles.

 

Despite the costs increases, the business case remains positive (we are told). Such lessons will have been learned for the MML work (and presumably "HS3" or whatever transpennine upgrade becomes), and do not really feature on the ECML works. They have not affected progressive enhancements that have been going on, largely unnoticed (because, apart from London Bridge) they haven't gone spectacularly wrong, just a bit delayed perhaps, across the country, particularly

 

the massive programmes:

of re-signalling and signalling centres,

of level crossing closures,

of electrification in Scotland and the North West of England,

of incremental speed increases (MML particularly),

of new flying or burrowing junctions,

of re-opened lines or links,

of gauge enhancements for freight (and new freight depots),

of Thameslink,

of Crossrail 1

etc etc.

 

Furthermore, state subsidy to the railway industry has fallen by around 35% in the last 5 years or so. You are also forgetting that the bulk of HS2 will be privately funded, as it is proposed. HS1 is essentially now a private operation, on a very, very long lease, and maintained and "signalled" by Network Rail on a commercial contract. The Northern Line extension is entirely privately funded. CrossRail 2 approaches with a sense of inevitability and absolute necessity.

 

There is a very clear vision and consensus (I would not go so far as agreement) as to what needs to be achieved for Britain's railways over time, and increasingly also for London's transport. There is not the same consensus for energy supply, the NHS or other key services and industries, which is why UK private finance is steering clear of much of that. I don't believe there is the shortage of capital you appear to suggest, but there is huge aversion to risk. NR would have had no problem borrowing more to cover the increased costs of GWML, before they entered the govt's books. Banks are now more profitable than at any time since before 2008, but are lending less as industry is not sufficiently investing, and mortgages are made harder to obtain. The affordability of new and enhanced rail schemes is not the issue, and public perception of the need for it is still highly robust, given twice as many people use the system compared to 15/20 years ago. It is easy to believe the rhetoric of our current Chancellor, but the reality is that substantial, national infrastructure investment is vital to restore our economy (as recommended by the IMF) and, thankfully, he seems to have discovered that Keynsian notion, but is still trying to get the private sector to pay for it.

[corneliuslundie]

What struck me when I read the NR report was the massive amount of current or proposed work listed, some of which i had never even heard of. Given the lack of investment in the past, leading to loss of skills within the industry, I really don't know how ORR or the DFT ever imagined we could do what was originally proposed in the timescales expected. NR may not be doing as well as ORR and the DFT optimistically planned, but they are doing an enormous amount of upgrading work, as well as coping with some of the worst storm damage for years. And alongside this day to day maintenance continues (last night on my line, and I missed the rare sight of anything but an NR class 97 or an ATW class 158 going through Newtown!). That is not to say NR is perfect, far from it, but the GWML work needs to be seen in context.

 

What is needed now is a properly planned future programme so skills can be retained, teams kept together and contractors and NR can plan properly. Fat chance the way the British economy works.

 

Jonathan

[Foulounoux]

Just one observation

 

Even if 90% of freight is by road many of our major routes also have capacity issues so that 10% that goes by rail would be the straw that broke the camels back.

 

 

That's the danger of extrapolating the numbers without taking into account what an apparently minor change may have.

 

Colin

[HillsideDepot]

There has been some talk here about making good use of possession time, so hopefully this (edited to show routings) screenshot from the Open Train Times website will be of interest. I've no idea what working is happening in the possession, or if they are making good use of that time, but the Thames Valley signaller is certainly making good use of the line capacity.

1C33 ran Down the Up Main past the worksite, crossing 1A37 which had been switched to run on to the Up Relief, and all viewed from the comfort of my armchair!

[The Stationmaster]

Some posts above have extrapolated my argument way beyond its meaning. I never said that because my transport needs aren't met by the railway, then the UK doesn't need a railway network - that would be absurd. But it is a fact that the economics of transport infrastructure provision have changed completely since the rail network was originally built. Even the main parts of the London Underground were built by private capital - what are the chances of a new privately-owned & financed tube line now?! So new lines or upgrades require public subsidy, and therefore have to compete for spending with the NHS, education, armed forces, anti-terrorism, etc, etc. in a country where even weak economic growth is only coming from population growth, rather than increased productivity.

 

Worryingly, the trend is for new projects to cost more and more as safety and environmental costs increase, so I wonder if we're approaching a point where big rail projects are becoming just too "difficult", in the same way that new large-scale electricity generating capacity in the UK seems to be (or an expansion of airport capacity near London). And, like it or not, away from London & a couple of other major conurbations, you could scrap train services tomorrow, and life would not grind to a standstill. Despite all the noise, Plymouth & Cornwall managed OK whilst the line at Dawlish was out of action, & at the moment, "OK" seems to be the best we can afford

 

You could even scrap rail freight, since nearly 90% of freight is already on the roads (I don't believe that the recent growth in rail freight will be sustained - quite the reverse, in fact, given what's happening to power stations & the steel industry). Even a relatively small project like doubling the line to Felixstowe seems to be too difficult to achieve. It is in this context that Network Rail's performance has to be judged, and their performance with the GWML electrification is pretty lamentable. In the end, I think it will be regarded as pretty poor value for money for the UK as a whole, which will have a very negative impact when similar schemes are proposed in the future.

The question always worth asking is 90% of what when it comes to 'freight'?

 

As there are no railway lines in the road outside my house, and getting here from the main road would make even Dainton look flat, parcels are delivered by Royal Mail or couriers etc, building materials from Jewsons come on one or other of their lorries, the milk comes on a Ford Transit, the new tumble drier was delivered on a lorry, as was some furniture, in fact when the house was built we moved our stuff in using lorries and all the materials to build it were delivered to the site by lorries.  Exceptionally I have in front of a corner cupboard, and in the hall is a wooden chest, both of which arrived in the town on a freight train but were then delivered to this site (and the previous building which stood here) in a lorry.

 

All of these deliveries count as 'traffic moved by road' (and not as traffic moved by rail although the items which reached the town in a freight train were actually counted as both - thus contributing at that time to make BR Britain's largest road haulage operator.  The situation is really very simple - a large part of that 90% simply could not be moved by rail at all and none of it could be delivered to my front door, or that of most other people, except in a road vehicle.  It is plainly obvious to me - a long term career railwayman who had pride in what we achieved as an industry - that we could not compete with road haulage fora  very significant part of stuff which counts in the freight tonnage on the roads, nor did we want to.

 

But British heavy industry, and a good proportion of the vehicles on the roads, could nor operate without the railway to move essential materials and goods in bulk.  The diesel I buy to fuel my car will inevitably have got to our vicinity by train, some of the building materials I have had over the years made part of their journey by train - and so on.  True rail's share has dropped but markets have changed and some things would very quickly stop or lead to massive congestion on teh roads if they stopped moving by rail.

[Richard E]

Of course, during the Miners strikes coal moved by road, just look at the chaos that would cause today if coal/biomass and other bulk items moved by road. Roads are far, far busier now and there isn't the scope to expand the road network to take the sort of traffic levels that getting rid of rail freight would demand.

[locoholic]

The question always worth asking is 90% of what when it comes to 'freight'?

 

But British heavy industry, and a good proportion of the vehicles on the roads, could nor operate without the railway to move essential materials and goods in bulk.  The diesel I buy to fuel my car will inevitably have got to our vicinity by train, some of the building materials I have had over the years made part of their journey by train - and so on.  True rail's share has dropped but markets have changed and some things would very quickly stop or lead to massive congestion on teh roads if they stopped moving by rail.

Sorry, but "British heavy industry" is rapidly gong the way of the dinosaurs - not a good long-term bet for rail freight.

 

Also, due to the construction of a nationwide network of pipelines, hardly any diesel fuel is transported by rail these days, I'm afraid, so it's extremely unlikely that the fuel in your car had a ride on a train. Even diesel fuel for railway use is delivered by road tankers.

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry, but "British heavy industry" is rapidly gong the way of the dinosaurs - not a good long-term bet for rail freight.

 

Also, due to the construction of a nationwide network of pipelines, hardly any diesel fuel is transported by rail these days, I'm afraid, so it's extremely unlikely that the fuel in your car had a ride on a train. Even diesel fuel for railway use is delivered by road tankers.

Alas at at least one of the filling station I use I know exactly where their diesel is delivered from and it is a rail terminal, not a pipeline terminal.  And I have a  strong suspicion that the fuel for the nearest depot fuelling trains could well come from the same source.

[The Stationmaster]

There has been some talk here about making good use of possession time, so hopefully this (edited to show routings) screenshot from the Open Train Times website will be of interest. I've no idea what working is happening in the possession, or if they are making good use of that time, but the Thames Valley signaller is certainly making good use of the line capacity.

GWML.jpg

1C33 ran Down the Up Main past the worksite, crossing 1A37 which had been switched to run on to the Up Relief, and all viewed from the comfort of my armchair!

Thanks for showing that - which I missed previously - as it's always nice to see something which a colleague and I specified (and got through various objections) working exactly as we planned it to work.  You'll notice that exactly the same arrangement is possible when using the Down Main/Relief.  Overall it reduces the amount of running on what amounts to single line from 6 miles to a bit less than 2 miles thus minimising delays when reversible working is in operation.

[Talltim]

Ironically, much of the stone for building roads travels at least part of the way by rail

[jonny777]

Of course, during the Miners strikes coal moved by road, just look at the chaos that would cause today if coal/biomass and other bulk items moved by road. Roads are far, far busier now and there isn't the scope to expand the road network to take the sort of traffic levels that getting rid of rail freight would demand.

 

 

During one strike, the Port Talbot - Llanwern iron ore was moved by road for a short period, and that was a nightmare to anyone who encountered the convoy on the M4. (Admittedly a lot of that motorway was only 2-lanes in those days).

 

Imagine the chaos on the M3/A303 if the Mendip aggregates traffic was moved by road - and that is only one example.

[Fat Controller]

During one strike, the Port Talbot - Llanwern iron ore was moved by road for a short period, and that was a nightmare to anyone who encountered the convoy on the M4. (Admittedly a lot of that motorway was only 2-lanes in those days).

 

Imagine the chaos on the M3/A303 if the Mendip aggregates traffic was moved by road - and that is only one example.

The Mendip stone would just end up being used locally; the quarry companies would switch to using stone brought in by sea from Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere to coastal terminals.

[Geoff Endacott]

British business now seems to concentrate on moving money around and that doesn't need to travel by rail or road.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Reorte]

Ironically, much of the stone for building roads travels at least part of the way by rail

Does the ballast for the railway travel by road?

[jamie92208]

Does the ballast for the railway travel by road?

As far as I know it does.

 

Jamie

[Fat Controller]

As far as I know it does.

 

Jamie

Not that often, Jamie; only in cases where the quarry is some way from the railway (Parkend in the Forest of Dean, and Hexham, come to mind), or where the railway has yet be installed (examples in recent years being CTRL Section 1 and the Channel Tunnel Terminal)

[jamie92208]

Not that often, Jamie; only in cases where the quarry is some way from the railway (Parkend in the Forest of Dean, and Hexham, come to mind), or where the railway has yet be installed (examples in recent years being CTRL Section 1 and the Channel Tunnel Terminal)

Thanks for the correction Brian, I must write out 100 times " I must learn to read the question."

 

Jamie

[Mike Storey]

Does the ballast for the railway travel by road?

 

Since the establishment of "virtual quarries" by NR (such as the huge one at Whitemoor), which act as supply depots for ballast and other bulk materials, virtually none goes by road, expect where unavoidable (as Brian says) to the nearest railhead.

[Richard E]

Getting back to OHLE design today makes a point about the ECML kit. National Rail posted a warning about OHLE problems in the Alnmouth area at 7:11 this morning. They are expected to remain until the end of service today despite an engineering team being on site. Yes, it is windy, but we have had worse and we need to be able to cope with these natural events as part of business as usual.