GWML Electification

[NickC]

"These problems would never have happened if the railways were still nationalised".

Oh wait a minute... Network Rail is a nationalised organisation!!

[phil-b259]

NR do not seem to be able to get their act together on this job,agree that it is disjointed project I can remember when the line I lived next door to was wired in the sixties it was a continuous project.Masts went up as the infrastructure was modified then the wires so simple compared to now and the main lines locally had the same treatment, perhaps nowadays we over specify jobs ,with to many parts that possibly are not needed ,I bow to the experts on here if there are genuine reasons for this project being so poorly delivered.

 

There are a number of reasons for why the GWML electrification project has descended into chaos - some internal to NR, some historic, some due to general industry issues and some due to enhanced standards since the last big scheme was completed - now almost 30 years ago when the ECML got wires.

 

These include:-

 

(1) NR having hardly any experience in undertaking electrification projects thanks to Governments of all colours not undertaking any such schemes since privatisation.

(2) NR not having key historic data due to much if it being thrown out as 'not needed' by Railtrack and the IMCs who were supposed to manage the infrastructure in the years immediately after privatisation.

(3) NR making lots of mistakes (sometimes repeatedly) as it tries to re- learn all the skills necessary or rebuild its route knowledge to overcome (1) and (2)

(4) The fact that most of the work all has to be contracted out leading to extra interfaces and potential sources for delay / dispute compared to 30 years ago when the work was all done 'in house'

(5) Poor project management on the part of NR and the seeming inability to get on top of things - though this again is in part due to the sheer size of the project.

(6) Health and Safety regs having got tougher since the late 1980s with knock on effects on costs and what can be achieved in any given possession, etc.

(7) The various big railway contractors (e.g. Balfour Beatty) having no recent experience of electrification work in the UK - for the same reasons as NR, i.e. a lack of Government action for over 20 years.

(8) The Government dumping several big electrification schemes on NR within the space of six months and not taking into account its lack of action in the previous 20 years.

(9) The Government pushing ahead with train procurement themselves resulting in the most expensive to lease in the Uk trains being delivered before the wires will be ready for them.

 

So yes on the face of it most of the blame does rest with NR - but as the saying goes, "old sins have long shadows" - in other words NR was starting from a significant disadvantage in the first place due to the actions of the Major government in privatising the industry and the creation of Railtrack etc. Expecting NR to be able to overcome such deep seated issues virtually overnight was always going to end in tears - although as The Stationmaster and others who have BR experience say, NR do seem to be making a right mess of attempting to rescue the project and failing stop completion slipping further.

.

Edited November 8, 2016 by phil-b259

[TheSignalEngineer]

Where does this leave the DMU cascade that is supposed to facilitate (some of) the service enhancements in the Northern franchise, I wonder?

GW can have some of Northern's Pacers in exchange for the stock they have coming off lease.

[31A]

Northern are supposed to be getting 150s from GW to allow some of the service enhancements committed in the franchise to take place. As I understand it the Pacers will be replaced by the new units that have been ordered, but that's not until a bit later.

[Zomboid]

Not great news, but it makes some sense to leave Temple Meads and Oxford for now (from where things are now), as I believe both are due major remodelling/ resignalling projects fairly soon, and to electrify them only to rip it down for a different track layout would not be the best use of resources.

I think both will get done eventually - the electrical substations to support them seem largely built for a start. Guess time will tell.

[APOLLO]

One of the first "new lines for electrification" was Liverpool to Manchester and Wigan. Electric trains have been running on these routes for nearly two years - BUT - there is still unfinished work. The 4 tracking between Huyton and Broad Green has brand new track laid & ballasted, signalled, overhead strung, new platforms built and furnished - but the lines are rusty and not yet connected to the running lines !!!

 

Shambolic resource planning.

 

Brit15

[phil-b259]

One of the first "new lines for electrification" was Liverpool to Manchester and Wigan. Electric trains have been running on these routes for nearly two years - BUT - there is still unfinished work. The 4 tracking between Huyton and Broad Green has brand new track laid & ballasted, signalled, overhead strung, new platforms built and furnished - but the lines are rusty and not yet connected to the running lines !!!

 

Shambolic resource planning.

 

Brit15

 

In that particular case I believe the issues was the need for Network Rail to actually compulsory purchase a small strip of land as modern regulations required a slightly wider trackbed than existed back in LMS days which in turn required widening of the embankment. Unfortunately being in an urban area this was not the purchase of farmland, but part of a BT compound - which BT contested resulting in a drawn out planning process to acquire the land. As such the engineers got on and laid what they could with every intention of coming back to finish the job when the land had been acquired - which was always going to occur after the bulk of the stuff had been installed due to the land issue.

 

I am not sure if this has finally happened - but as railway signalling installation / testing / commissioning resources are in short supply throughout the UK (and have been for several years now) it could well be that having missed the original commissioning of the other signalling in the area, the problem is finding enough staff to come back and finish the job without more extensive / important jobs suffering as a result.

 

Finally Its all very well saying "Shambolic resource planning" - but it doesn't matter how good your planning is, without actually having said resources available to deploy then the quality of the planning is irrelevant. Many people think its easy to simply rustle up men and equipment at the snap of the fingers when the reality is very different.

[Re6/6]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/great-western-electrification-projects-deferred.html

 

Going from a mismanaged farce to a disgraceful shambles. All concerned, both those in NR and DafT, should hang their heads in abject shame (or better still loose them metaphorically).

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Two points - Firstly the elements not going ahead are refereed to as 'deferred' not 'cancelled' or 'postponed' so there is every chance that once the Paddington - Cardiff / Newbury sections are up and running the staff can move on straight away to the deferred routes. Secondly, the Government remain committed to the original full scheme in principle so the work done at Box is not wasted and will make things easier once electrification engineers return to the route via Bath.

 

Agreed but the BBC is definitely presenting it rather differently and the press announcement does refer to money saved - not to expenditure deferred.  And hasn't Newbury already been deferred/delayed anyway (although masts are going up in the usual hit & miss fashion that has characterised this abysmally managed scheme since Day 1).

 

Not great news, but it makes some sense to leave Temple Meads and Oxford for now (from where things are now), as I believe both are due major remodelling/ resignalling projects fairly soon, and to electrify them only to rip it down for a different track layout would not be the best use of resources.

I think both will get done eventually - the electrical substations to support them seem largely built for a start. Guess time will tell.

 

Leaving Oxford is probably a consequence of the seeming inability of various parties to actually agree what is going to happen to the station and other parts of the layout in the longer term,  However - as already known it is going to short a very messy short term timetable situation into a longer term mess.  But who cares, the M40 isn't too far off.

 

Temple Meads etc could well be part of ducking the cost of the increasingly overdue track layout and signalling renewals and modernisation.  Only problem would appear to be that train performance/punctuality and the whole efficiency of the timetable could suffer due to reported inability of the Class 800s to maintain HST timings when running on diesel power - that could turn out to very interesting (and potentially expensive for someone).

 

There are a number of reasons for why the GWML electrification project has descended into chaos - some internal to NR, some historic, some due to general industry issues and some due to enhanced standards since the last big scheme was completed - now almost 30 years ago when the ECML got wires.

 

These include:-

 

(1) NR having hardly any experience in undertaking electrification projects thanks to Governments of all colours not undertaking any such schemes since privatisation.

(2) NR not having key historic data due to much if it being thrown out as 'not needed' by Railtrack and the IMCs who were supposed to manage the infrastructure in the years immediately after privatisation.

(3) NR making lots of mistakes (sometimes repeatedly) as it tries to re- learn all the skills necessary or rebuild its route knowledge to overcome (1) and (2)

(4) The fact that most of the work all has to be contracted out leading to extra interfaces and potential sources for delay / dispute compared to 30 years ago when the work was all done 'in house'

(5) Poor project management on the part of NR and the seeming inability to get on top of things - though this again is in part due to the sheer size of the project.

(6) Health and Safety regs having got tougher since the late 1980s with knock on effects on costs and what can be achieved in any given possession, etc.

(7) The various big railway contractors (e.g. Balfour Beatty) having no recent experience of electrification work in the UK - for the same reasons as NR, i.e. a lack of Government action for over 20 years.

(8) The Government dumping several big electrification schemes on NR within the space of six months and not taking into account its lack of action in the previous 20 years.

(9) The Government pushing ahead with train procurement themselves resulting in the most expensive to lease in the Uk trains being delivered before the wires will be ready for them.

 

So yes on the face of it most of the blame does rest with NR - but as the saying goes, "old sins have long shadows" - in other words NR was starting from a significant disadvantage in the first place due to the actions of the Major government in privatising the industry and the creation of Railtrack etc. Expecting NR to be able to overcome such deep seated issues virtually overnight was always going to end in tears - although as The Stationmaster and others who have BR experience say, NR do seem to be making a right mess of attempting to rescue the project and failing stop completion slipping further.

.

 

I'm sorry Phil but I don't buy all of that - although I do agree with a lot of it.  

 

Gross mismanagement of resources and possession time isn't down to inexperience but to abysmal project management by what sounds to have been a bunch of amateurs (one was definitely an amateur, I believe he might have left in the more recent past).  It has been plainly obvious through the whole of the works so far that the NR part of the job was being very badly managed and that proper use of possession opportunities was simply not being taken.  Large amounts of the work is in the hands of road/rail machines with limited access sites and consequently slow transit times to work sites thus limiting the time available within a possession for work to be carried out, jobs go off at half cock which means some things are having to be done two or three times in order to get a section up to a state in which it can actually be wired and when the wiring is done (again mainly using road/rail vehicles) it requires further work to make it fit for use.  

 

Unless thing have changed in the past week the Relief Lines between Scours Lane and Didcot are still not finished to the state where the catenary can be used and large amounts of work are still going on to complete work on the Main Lines side as well.  'Headline' early (rather 'not as late as it would have been') turn on (occasionally) of current on the Main Lines has probably delayed more work than it has actually achieved anything.

Edited November 8, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/great-western-electrification-projects-deferred.html

 

Going from a mismanaged farce to a disgraceful shambles. All concerned, both those in NR and DafT, should hang their heads in abject shame (or better still loose them metaphorically).

And that Paul Maynard is either a bare faced liar or a total idiot (other descriptions are available) for saying this -

 

Maynard said he had decided to defer the projects because ‘the benefits expected by passengers’, including the introduction of new rolling stock providing more capacity, could be achieved ‘without requiring costly and disruptive electrification works’.

 

because the only way we will get 'new rolling stock with improved capacity' will be if the line is electrified (or does a 2 car Class 165 suddenly magically become a 4 car Class 387 without the need for ohle?).  The man's a fool if he actually thinks anyone believes him and I have already compared him to our local MP in a letter to our local paper (which stands a good chance of being printed as the Editor hates our MP with a passion).  It might be regarded as a pity also if my letter also happens to derail promises made about one of the intermediate stations on our branch although i do wonder if their MP will take up the cudgels on their behalf - a certain Mrs May.

[phil-b259]

 

I'm sorry Phil but I don't buy all of that - although I do agree with a lot of it.  

 

 

Hence what I said in my last paragraph.

 

However I stand by my insertion that had NR had a fully functioning well staffed electrification department with a history of delivering schemes already in existence, (and the same with regards to the big engineering contractors they use), plus had NR been in possession of all the necessary site records etc that BR had, when the Government announced the GWML scheme then NR would have been fully set up to deliver it.

 

Instead we had several large schemes thrown on a body with no recent experience of undertaking such work and whose historic records had great big chunks missing. Is it any surprise that things have gone wrong.

 

What NR have been clearly guilty of is not taking the right action when it became clear things were going awry - as you say the project management has been abysmal on the GWML electrification project, yet when you look at the Dawlish washout, the Dover sea wall, or the Settle & Carlisle landslip NR is able to project manage those perfectly well even though they were all 'emergencies' and not planned works as such. Thus I refuse to believe NR cannot do project management as such - which throws the emphasis back on something specific to the GWML project. Ultimately I feel it was simply a too bigger project for NR to take on given their experience in the field of electrification to date and the DfT were at fault for not actually considering such things before dumping the project on the industry.

[4630]

.

Edited November 12, 2016 by 4630

[phil-b259]

A fair amount of sophistry from DafT going on here I should think.  The money saved refers to money that won't now be spent in Control Period 5 (April 2015 - March 2019).  Of course we all know it isn't a real saving.

 

As the High Level Output Specification for Control Period 6 (April 2019 - March 2024) hasn't yet been published by the Office of Road and Rail Regulation, they don't want to commit to adding the cost of finishing off the deferred GW electrification work as they don't know how much the Treasury will allow them to have. 

 

Hence why I generally dislike accountants (as a profession - not as people) / the Treasury . Moving money around so it comes out of different pots so others can then trump about savings or investment (that needs to happen regardless) is basically deception. I subscribe to the 'spade is a spade'' view and if something needs doing it needs doing - arguments as to precisely which pot the money comes out from is a needless distraction.

[The Stationmaster]

Hence what I said in my last paragraph.

 

However I stand by my insertion that had NR had a fully functioning well staffed electrification department with a history of delivering schemes already in existence, (and the same with regards to the big engineering contractors they use), plus had NR been in possession of all the necessary site records etc that BR had, when the Government announced the GWML scheme then NR would have been fully set up to deliver it.

 

Instead we had several large schemes thrown on a body with no recent experience of undertaking such work and whose historic records had great big chunks missing. Is it any surprise that things have gone wrong.

 

What NR have been clearly guilty of is not taking the right action when it became clear things were going awry - as you say the project management has been abysmal on the GWML electrification project, yet when you look at the Dawlish washout, the Dover sea wall, or the Settle & Carlisle landslip NR is able to project manage those perfectly well even though they were all 'emergencies' and not planned works as such. Thus I refuse to believe NR cannot do project management as such - which throws the emphasis back on something specific to the GWML project. Ultimately I feel it was simply a too bigger project for NR to take on given their experience in the field of electrification to date and the DfT were at fault for not actually considering such things before dumping the project on the industry.

 

Not just any of that Phil - it has been abundantly clear to anyone who has been watching (just look at some of my earlier posts in this thread) that the project management has been atrocious.  You didn't need even to be an engineer to say that it was bad - in fact many BR project Managers didn't have an engineering background but they made sure the various elements of a project came together in a  timely and cost effective (i.e. within budget/authorised variance) manner.  It was clear on this job - with some new techniques involved so obviously no previous experience - that project management were not keeping on top of work being done in the most effective sequential manner either because they didn't know or realise that it wasn't or that didn't understand the basic outline of how such a project should proceed.

 

Another odd thing is that when telling Roger Ford - according to his words in 'Modern Railways' that things were going to change in fact they didn't.  A good example was the story that there would be a simplification of the range of foundation tube sizes being used and yet even more variations have appeared on the Reading - Twyford section than had been seen anywhere earlier in the scheme.  Now I can readily understand why that has happened between reading and Twyford - I would have been surprised if it hadn't - but by then they had well over a year's experience under their belts and they still came out with nonsense.

 

So I'm sorry - I understand about lack of electrification expertise but putting up masts is as much about foundation work as anything else and that is hardly a mystic art to civil engineers so should have been put into the programme as such and then project managed. 

[The Stationmaster]

A fair amount of sophistry from DafT going on here I should think.  The money saved refers to money that won't now be spent in Control Period 5 (April 2015 - March 2019).  Of course we all know it isn't a real saving.

 

As the High Level Output Specification for Control Period 6 (April 2019 - March 2024) hasn't yet been published by the Office of Road and Rail Regulation, they don't want to commit to adding the cost of finishing off the deferred GW electrification work as they don't know how much the Treasury will allow them to have. 

Could be even cleverer than that because when whichever Minister announces major new spending investment for 'infrastructure work' they can now include 'xxx miles of railway electrification and signalling modernisation' hoping that we will have forgotten they had shelved it in a previous announcement.

[4630]

.

Edited November 12, 2016 by 4630

[phil-b259]

Not just any of that Phil - it has been abundantly clear to anyone who has been watching (just look at some of my earlier posts in this thread) that the project management has been atrocious.  You didn't need even to be an engineer to say that it was bad - in fact many BR project Managers didn't have an engineering background but they made sure the various elements of a project came together in a  timely and cost effective (i.e. within budget/authorised variance) manner.  It was clear on this job - with some new techniques involved so obviously no previous experience - that project management were not keeping on top of work being done in the most effective sequential manner either because they didn't know or realise that it wasn't or that didn't understand the basic outline of how such a project should proceed.

 

Another odd thing is that when telling Roger Ford - according to his words in 'Modern Railways' that things were going to change in fact they didn't.  A good example was the story that there would be a simplification of the range of foundation tube sizes being used and yet even more variations have appeared on the Reading - Twyford section than had been seen anywhere earlier in the scheme.  Now I can readily understand why that has happened between reading and Twyford - I would have been surprised if it hadn't - but by then they had well over a year's experience under their belts and they still came out with nonsense.

 

So I'm sorry - I understand about lack of electrification expertise but putting up masts is as much about foundation work as anything else and that is hardly a mystic art to civil engineers so should have been put into the programme as such and then project managed. 

 

But were the works at Dawlish / Dover not basically civil engineering too? - as is the planned solution to the Settle & Carlisle landslip.

 

The big difference is obviously the size of the site compared to the entire length of the GWML but it does prove the expertise is there in NR. So the question comes as to why has the GWML electrification project not been able to use that talent to try and bring order to the process (that is a genuine question by the way not 'point scoring').

 

Again, I feel its a case of NR being forced to take on a project which is simply too big for it to manage and which it is simply not set up to do. Day to day renewals or localised improvement works like the London Bridge rebuild or Norton Bridge grade separation are not the same as the very long worksite which is the GWML at present.

[andy stroud]

BR couldn't have had that much previous experience of implimenting overhead electrification schemes when they undertook the West Coast scheme in the early 1960s.

[Reorte]

But were the works at Dawlish / Dover not basically civil engineering too? - as is the planned solution to the Settle & Carlisle landslip.

 

The big difference is obviously the size of the site compared to the entire length of the GWML but it does prove the expertise is there in NR.

With the emergency works there was no need to keep trains running too, which I'm guessing makes things simpler by orders of magnitude.

[jonathan452]

Temple Meads etc could well be part of ducking the cost of the increasingly overdue track layout and signalling renewals and modernisation.  Only problem would appear to be that train performance/punctuality and the whole efficiency of the timetable could suffer due to reported inability of the Class 800s to maintain HST timings when running on diesel power - that could turn out to very interesting (and potentially expensive for someone).

Indeed.

 

Not so fun times ahead.

[caradoc]

Agreed but the BBC is definitely presenting it rather differently and the press announcement does refer to money saved - not to expenditure deferred.  And hasn't Newbury already been deferred/delayed anyway (although masts are going up in the usual hit & miss fashion that has characterised this abysmally managed scheme since Day 1).

 

 

Leaving Oxford is probably a consequence of the seeming inability of various parties to actually agree what is going to happen to the station and other parts of the layout in the longer term,  However - as already known it is going to short a very messy short term timetable situation into a longer term mess.  But who cares, the M40 isn't too far off.

 

Regarding Didcot/Oxford - I must confess to a vested interest as I grew up in Oxford and still regularly visit my Mum there. Oxford station is certainly currently unfit for purpose. If I may quote from a magazine article entitled Oxford - An Operational Problem: 'Oxford offers almost unparalleled operational difficuties because of its limited facilties and heavy traffic. It is without doubt one of the least suited stations in the country to deal with the traffic which it is called on to handle'. When were these statements made ? In the Railway Magazine of February 1954. More than 62 years later, although the station buildings have been replaced, twice, the basic track layout of only two through platforms, and no south-facing bay platforms, has never been addressed.

 

However this should not be a reason to defer electrification; The last proposal I heard was to build two south facing terminal platforms on the site of the car park, south of the Botley Road, which would not require major track or infrastructure alterations. Given that Didcot/Oxford is only 10 miles, with no tunnels, not that many overbridges, and (except for Didcot and Oxford themselves) a simple double track layout (for passenger train working), the need to defer this part of the project is, in my opinion, nothing short of laughable.

 

In the current timetable, there are a large number of Paddington services which terminate at Oxford. Presumably the half-hourly stopping service will now have to be spilt in two either side of Didcot. Most of the fast trains do not call at Didcot, if formed of bi-modal stock will these now need to stop at Didcot to change modes, or can this be done on the move ?

 

And as for electrifying the 107 miles from Paddington to Bath, but not the last 12 miles to Bristol......words fail me.

 

I have not previously agreed with calls to sack railway managers, however in this sorry case I do not see how the NR Chief Executive or the NR Western Route Director can possibly continue in their posts having presided over this disgrace.   

[phil-b259]

BR couldn't have had that much previous experience of implimenting overhead electrification schemes when they undertook the West Coast scheme in the early 1960s.

 

Indeed and while the view looking back is that it was completed fairly easily, I'm sure that wasn't the case at the time.

 

People also need to remember that it came close to being cancelled by Dr Beaching due to am alarming increase in the cost - leading to the retention of mechanical signal boxes on the Trent valley and at Stafford while the Kidsgrove - Crewe line was deleted from the plans completely. Reductions were also made in the am mount of sidings, etc wired up plus the actual OHLE was change to a cheaper and more lightweight type.

 

Unfortunately with the GWML such cost cutting is generally not possible - though the deletion of the route via Bath and the postponement of resignalling Bristol from the initial phase could be thought to be similar to the 60s cutbacks to the WCML scheme.

[phil-b259]

Regarding Didcot/Oxford - I must confess to a vested interest as I grew up in Oxford and still regularly visit my Mum there. Oxford station is certainly currently unfit for purpose. If I may quote from a magazine article entitled Oxford - An Operational Problem: 'Oxford offers almost unparalleled operational difficuties because of its limited facilties and heavy traffic. It is without doubt one of the least suited stations in the country to deal with the traffic which it is called on to handle'. When were these statements made ? In the Railway Magazine of February 1954. More than 62 years later, although the station buildings have been replaced, twice, the basic track layout of only two through platforms, and no south-facing bay platforms, has never been addressed.

 

However this should not be a reason to defer electrification; The last proposal I heard was to build two south facing terminal platforms on the site of the car park, south of the Botley Road, which would not require major track or infrastructure alterations. Given that Didcot/Oxford is only 10 miles, with no tunnels, not that many overbridges, and (except for Didcot and Oxford themselves) a simple double track layout (for passenger train working), the need to defer this part of the project is, in my opinion, nothing short of laughable.

 

In the current timetable, there are a large number of Paddington services which terminate at Oxford. Presumably the half-hourly stopping service will now have to be spilt in two either side of Didcot. Most of the fast trains do not call at Didcot, if formed of bi-modal stock will these now need to stop at Didcot to change modes, or can this be done on the move ?

 

And as for electrifying the 107 miles from Paddington to Bath, but not the last 12 miles to Bristol......words fail me.

 

I have not previously agreed with calls to sack railway managers, however in this sorry case I do not see how the NR Chief Executive or the NR Western Route Director can possibly continue in their posts having presided over this disgrace.   

 

You could run Turbos from Didcot to Reading under the wires rather than force a change of trains at Didcot - I suspect much will depend on pathing and junction conflicts as to which is the best option operationally.

 

The IEPs can change from Diesel to electric on the move so could continue to use the avoiding lines.

 

While I understand your sentiment - what exactly would sacking the Head of NR or the route director achieve? The whole reason why the project has ended up in its current state is a lack of suitability qualified / talented / experienced people working on the project itself. Sacking the likes of the route director will do sod all to sort out the problems (he is not their boss with the ability to fire them directly - projects are administered separately from the routes) and probably cost the company dear in golden handshakes (its always mystified me why top city directors get paid to move on after screw ups when things go wrong - yet those actually implementing things tend to be sacked without such benefits).

 

What needs to happen to rescue the GWML project is to replace those involved in the project who are not performing - taking project management out of NRs hands might be a good idea in that respect as external observers may be more willing to be unpopular and ruthless when it comes to removing people who are struggling in their roles.

[Fenman]

There are a number of reasons for why the GWML electrification project has descended into chaos  ... These include:-

 

(1) NR having hardly any experience in undertaking electrification projects thanks to Governments of all colours not undertaking any such schemes since privatisation.

(2) NR not having key historic data due to much if it being thrown out as 'not needed' by Railtrack and the IMCs who were supposed to manage the infrastructure in the years immediately after privatisation.

(3) NR making lots of mistakes (sometimes repeatedly) as it tries to re- learn all the skills necessary or rebuild its route knowledge to overcome (1) and (2)

(4) The fact that most of the work all has to be contracted out leading to extra interfaces and potential sources for delay / dispute compared to 30 years ago when the work was all done 'in house'

(5) Poor project management on the part of NR and the seeming inability to get on top of things - though this again is in part due to the sheer size of the project.

(6) Health and Safety regs having got tougher since the late 1980s with knock on effects on costs and what can be achieved in any given possession, etc.

(7) The various big railway contractors (e.g. Balfour Beatty) having no recent experience of electrification work in the UK - for the same reasons as NR, i.e. a lack of Government action for over 20 years.

(8) The Government dumping several big electrification schemes on NR within the space of six months and not taking into account its lack of action in the previous 20 years.

(9) The Government pushing ahead with train procurement themselves resulting in the most expensive to lease in the Uk trains being delivered before the wires will be ready for them.

...

 

... The whole reason why the project has ended up in its current state is a lack of suitability qualified / talented / experienced people working on the project itself. ...

 

I'm a bit lost now as to whether you think there are lots of reasons (most of which are not NR's fault), or just one reason (which would appear to be entirely NR's fault).

 

Personally I'd go with several reasons, but there does come a point at which organisations can't really keep on blaming the actions of their predecessors. Railtrack may well have thrown out lots of documentation which was actually rather important. But Railtrack ceased to exist 14 years ago. How long should NR just keep blaming Railtrack, rather than getting on with survey work to create new records? Years? Decades? Centuries? At some point they're going to have to, so why do they appear not to have bothered?

 

Paul

[PenrithBeacon]

"These problems would never have happened if the railways were still nationalised".

Oh wait a minute... Network Rail is a nationalised organisation!!

It's nationalised now, but that's a pretty recent development in IIRC the last 18 months or so. The reason George Osborn did it was to bring expenditure under control not to ensure delivery of electrification of the GWML.

 

Putting that to one side, I'm astonished that there won't be any wires into Bristol Temple Meads or am I reading the runes incorrectly?

 

Regards