GWML Electification

[Edwin_m]

Hitachi are at least on a power-by-the-hour deal for the 800s, so if they don't perform as advertised then they won't get paid. 

[royaloak]

That's something I wasn't aware of and I must say I'm a bit surprised. I hadn't realised that we had moved so far from the idea of the private sector taking on risk. If a TOC takes on new stock and the next franchisee doesn't want it, isn't it the leasing company that's out of pocket?

 

I read that GWR had to get permission to buy the 802s but I assumed that was because they were in a franchise extension arrangement, not a regular franchise.

There is an awful lot you are not aware of, why dont you try doing some research instead of just telling others they are wrong when they are actually posting facts.

[royaloak]

Bringing this back more to the title of the thread though - I really hope that someone, somewhere, does a thorough piece of work to analyse the cost to the taxpayer of the IEP contract with Hitachi, and especially focus on the costs of the 'Variation Orders' required as a result of the delays to GWML electrification.  My sense is that the 'person on the Clapham omnibus', never mind taxpayers, would be less than impressed with the amount of money that GWML electrification delays has put into the pockets of a major Japanese company.

I am sure the government will hide behind confidentiality clauses rather than allow that sort of information to be made public.

 

Funnily enough NR had got on top of the electrification issues and were catching up on the delays, they were also getting it done cheaper as well until that <deleted> Grayling pulled the plug, allowed to carry on NR wouldnt have been that far over budget at the end, and definitely a lot cheaper than cancelling/postponing the schemes now only to restart them in a couple of years time when all the qualified and experienced engineers have either gone to Europe or got other (more secure) jobs and NR have to train up a fresh batch delaying the schemes from the start AGAIN.

[royaloak]

Hitachi are at least on a power-by-the-hour deal for the 800s, so if they don't perform as advertised then they won't get paid. 

Hitachi have some very good Solicitors who will argue tooth and nail that whatever the issue is it wasnt the new Super Hitachi Intercity Train at fault.

Edited October 19, 2017 by royaloak

[4630]

Hitachi have some very good Solicitors who will argue tooth and nail that whatever the issue is it wasnt the new Super Hitachi Intercity Train at fault.

You’re probably spot on with that observation.

 

After all Hitachi’s accountants and lawyers must have run rings around the DfT’s contract negotiators to get the original terms of the deal agreed.

[Coryton]

I doubt it will happen either, assuming no radical change of direction (unlikely but not impossible).

 

Given IEP’s operating life of 30+ years, I imagine that the DfT will engineer the franchise tender application process and financial bid assessment to mandate that bidders must continue to use IEP for whatever services they are then working.

 

 

I believe the DfT has given a 26.5 year "usage guarantee" so I think they'd be quite keen for franchisees to keep on using them for a while.

 

There is an awful lot you are not aware of, why dont you try doing some research instead of just telling others they are wrong when they are actually posting facts.

 

OK I normally don't respond to such things and maybe I shouldn't now but...

 

Yes there is indeed an awful lot I'm not aware of and something I enjoy about this forum is the chance to learn from those who do know more about things I'm ignorant of, and at other times contribute what I do know.

 

That's all I was trying to do, not claim that anybody was wrong - maybe it didn't come across that way but it wasn't the intention.

 

I think a forum would be a strange place if when anybody had a question they felt they had to go away and research it elsewhere rather than ask someone who knew.

[jim.snowdon]

 

Thus, if the IEP turns out to be a very expensive or inappropriate dog for any TOC, future franchise bidders may refuse to incorporate them into their bids, in which case this will be tested. In practice, I doubt that will actually happen.

To be fair to Hitachi, who are hardly amateurs in the field of electric traction, the Class 395 units, once they had settled down and had a ride problem dealt with, seem to be going about their daily business with little or no fuss.

 

Some of the comments I see on here remind me of when the London UNderground 1973 was new (and I was a much younger engineer having to deal with some o ftheir problems). They were at the time hardly models of reliability and the general comment from within was on the lines of "could we have some more 1938 stock instead", completely forgetting that when they were new, their reliability was as bad, if not worse. It is always easy to look back on a 30-40 year old train with rose-tinted glasses and forget that whilst they might now be relable workhorses, they weren't always that way. Hitachi may have had a bit of a bum day on Monday, but it is now nearly Friday, and the handful of units in service on GWR appear to have attracted no further reports.

 

Jim

[4630]

I am sure the government will hide behind confidentiality clauses rather than allow that sort of information to be made public.

 

I have no doubt that they will try to mislead and obfuscate. It’s what governments do and tends, in my view, to be their default mode when challenged.

 

Because of the sums involved though I wouldn’t be surprised if the National Audit Office revisits this issue. Several years ago they investigated the cost of procuring new trains and their report which covered both Thameslink and IEP wasn’t exactly full of praise.

 

I haven’t checked, but I don’t believe any of their recommendations were taken up. Again, I’m not particularly surprised. I think the phrase “horse, bolt and stable door” springs to mind.

[phil-b259]

To be fair to Hitachi, who are hardly amateurs in the field of electric traction, the Class 395 units, once they had settled down and had a ride problem dealt with, seem to be going about their daily business with little or no fuss.

 

Some of the comments I see on here remind me of when the London UNderground 1973 was new (and I was a much younger engineer having to deal with some o ftheir problems). They were at the time hardly models of reliability and the general comment from within was on the lines of "could we have some more 1938 stock instead", completely forgetting that when they were new, their reliability was as bad, if not worse. It is always easy to look back on a 30-40 year old train with rose-tinted glasses and forget that whilst they might now be relable workhorses, they weren't always that way. Hitachi may have had a bit of a bum day on Monday, but it is now nearly Friday, and the handful of units in service on GWR appear to have attracted no further reports.

 

Jim

 

I don't think anyone doubts Hatchi's ability to build or maintain trains - nor do I doubt that their lawyers, salesmen and accountants are all pretty good at extracting monies from the DfT where necessary.

 

However like many others, the same cannot be said of the DfT - who have totally mismanaged the whole IEP / IET saga from start to finish. As 4630 reminds us the IEP was doomed from the start because of the DfTs insistence that they manage its procurement rather than the "rip of ROSCOs" (which were nothing of the sort).

[Mike Storey]

To be fair to Hitachi, who are hardly amateurs in the field of electric traction, the Class 395 units, once they had settled down and had a ride problem dealt with, seem to be going about their daily business with little or no fuss.

 

Some of the comments I see on here remind me of when the London UNderground 1973 was new (and I was a much younger engineer having to deal with some o ftheir problems). They were at the time hardly models of reliability and the general comment from within was on the lines of "could we have some more 1938 stock instead", completely forgetting that when they were new, their reliability was as bad, if not worse. It is always easy to look back on a 30-40 year old train with rose-tinted glasses and forget that whilst they might now be relable workhorses, they weren't always that way. Hitachi may have had a bit of a bum day on Monday, but it is now nearly Friday, and the handful of units in service on GWR appear to have attracted no further reports.

 

Jim

 

Totally agree Jim. It is not the train maker I was having a dig at. It was the specifying committee at the DfT, who have continually moved the goalposts (both for NR and for Hitachi), in thrall to their political masters.This has resulted in a much heavier train in nearly all its versions now (having only really been envisaged for a few, for the Scotland non-electrified extensions and a few others, and for which a far more economic solution was being argued right up to the finishing line), which will cost a small fortune to drag around, and will not have the power of its predecessor when off the wires, which will be for a large part of its life now (unless electrification is resurrected). It is an expensive answer forever (whole life operating costs) to an expensive short term, one-off cost issue (GWEP and the rest of the cancelled schemes).The only up side I can see, and it is a good one mind you, is that the bulk of the fleet will undertake planned engineering and emergency diversions at ease, subject to gauging. Given what is being reported about the funding left available for the rest of CP5 and for CP6, there probably won't be that many of the former, but quite a growing number of the latter.

 

No doubt Hitachi will make it work, but this whole fiasco would never have happened in Japan. They must be laughing their socks off quite bemused.

[SouthernMafia]

First 12-car Class 387 test currently running:

 

387153

387157

387158

 

5Z50 09:05 Reading TCD to Didcot Parkway

5Z51 09:46 Didcot Parkway to Reading TCD

[Banger Blue]

First 12-car Class 387 test currently running:

387153

387157

387158

5Z50 09:05 Reading TCD to Didcot Parkway

5Z51 09:46 Didcot Parkway to Reading TCD

A 12-car 387 test train has run before, between Reading TCD & Didcot, (at night, some months ago). This run was to reaffirm the data from the first test train and more importantly check that any ‘areas of concern’ have been rectified. Edited October 20, 2017 by Banger Blue

[royaloak]

Its a 27.5 year usage deal, you were very close.

Yes there is indeed an awful lot I'm not aware of and something I enjoy about this forum is the chance to learn from those who do know more about things I'm ignorant of, and at other times contribute what I do know.

 

That's all I was trying to do, not claim that anybody was wrong - maybe it didn't come across that way but it wasn't the intention.

 

I think a forum would be a strange place if when anybody had a question they felt they had to go away and research it elsewhere rather than ask someone who knew.

Unfortunately the context in our heads doesnt always carry through to what our fingers tap into the keyboard (I am as guilty as everyone else for that) but I try to answer your questions and you simply post examples questioning my answer, the issues with the IETs raising their pans will be made public soon enough but just because those outside the railway havent heard of any issues doesnt mean those on the inside the railways havent.

 

I have heard about several 'issues' this week that I not able to make public as I would probably end up with a P45 for making it public, the TOCs take their social media policies very serious and I know 2 people who have lost their jobs and seven others put on final written warnings for posting on forums, bookface and  tw@ter, a position I do not want to end up in.

[Mike Storey]

I admit I have not read every single post on this thread, as I just dip and out, when I spot something of interest. But in case this has not appeared before, it is an illustration of the fact that it is not just NR that is getting it wrong on some significant railway enhancement schemes at present.

 

The Croxley to Watford extension scheme, for the Metropolitan Line of the London Underground, was supported by TfL (after many earlier suggestions by LTE and LRT) in 2005 at a total estimate of £65m, with an opening date of 2010. DfT funding for its part did not materialise. A further submission was attempted in February 2008, at a revised cost of £95m. This time, TfL would not commit. But the East of England Regional Assembly tried again in July 2008, at a new, revised cost of £150m, with promises of contributions from Hertfordshire CC, with an opening date of 2015.

 

Further iterations followed, and the DfT agreed to majority fund a business case at a revised (de-scoped) total budget of around £116m. Herts CC were given primary responsibility for delivery and the projected completion date was May 2016.

 

But by Dec 2014, HCC stated that the scheme estimate had now risen to £230m. TfL, who were now stating that HCC had severely underestimated the cost of the project, were directed to take over scheme responsibility, with HCC also stating there would be scheme slippage to at least Dec 2016.

 

By early 2015, TfL, using Aecom, were now predicting that the total budget would be around £284m, and that opening could not happen until 2020.

 

As of May this year, TfL were now declaring that the project budget needed was likely to be around £334m, and a commitment from government to fund, or approve alternative funding for, the shortfall, is awaited (unless I have missed something recently). It is unclear whether the project can actually go ahead, despite the fact that £130m (yes, £130m) has already been spent, which appears to have just bought vegetation clearance, detailed design, some prep works and some land purchase/compensation.

 

So, a scheme, which has been both de-scoped and, to be fair, had some extra scope attached, but is basically a 3rd and 4th rail railway built largely over a pre-existing trackbed, has increased in cost by 500% in just over 10 years, has been delayed by 10 years, and possibly much longer (or never) has already cost over 30% of its total, revised budget, and has barely involved NR, who were for a while contracted to HCC for the prep works and development of detailed design. I believe, in proportion, this make GWEP look almost professional (dons tin hat and retires immediately).

 

I am aware of some of the complications afflicting this scheme, but it is a useful illustration of the woes that can affect even the simplest schemes in this country.

 

There are a number of road schemes that I could dig up that would look nearly as bad, plus certain power station, flood defence schemes and defence procurements, that could also serve. This does not defend NR's record on GWEP, but does show that it is not alone. It correlates almost exactly with the increase in professional qualifications available to those involved in project management and its associated specialisms. Just sayin'.

 

It is not that it is better elsewhere. I personally know, from old colleagues, of a couple of huge projects in the US that have gone AWOL, after billions have gone west. And in France, well..... At least in China they get the things built, sort out planning consents with a few tens of thousands of displaced citizens, and do their quality control and acceptance testing with a few hundred dead people, just like the Victorians, but on a much grander scale. But what price nostalgia, eh?

[olivegreen]

Off-topic, I know, but following on from Mike Storey's last paragraph above, the French equivalent of the national audit office has recently pointed fingers at SNCF for excessive expenditure on the TGV network, highlighting (if the news media are to be believed) that some 38% of the SNCF budget is spent on TGV, which carries only 2% of the passenger total.  (edited to add that although those actual figures will doubtlessly be debated until the cows come home, the general point is clear.)

 

As is the way of these things, I suspect that the true cost of the LGV extensions from just east of Le Mans to Rennes and from south of Tours to Bordeaux (both loss-making TGV routes - that to Bordeaux in particular, according to the same audit office), which opened with great publicity this summer, will never be known to the French taxpayer.

 

Mike.

Edited October 22, 2017 by olivegreen

[Mike Storey]

Off-topic, I know, but following on from Mike Storey's last paragraph above, the French equivalent of the national audit office has recently pointed fingers at SNCF for excessive expenditure on the TGV network, highlighting (if the news media are to be believed) that some 38% of the SNCF budget is spent on TGV, which carries only 2% of the passenger total.  (edited to add that although those actual figures will doubtlessly be debated until the cows come home, the general point is clear.)

 

As is the  ways of these things, I suspect that the true cost of the LGV extensions from just east of Le Mans to Rennes and from south of Tours to Bordeaux (both loss-making TGV routes - that to Bordeaux in particular, according to the same audit office), which opened with great publicity this summer, will never be known to the French taxpayer.

 

Mike.

 

Absolutely, although, as you say, the passenger percentage is actually pretty unfair, as a large amount of SNCF passenger count is actually attributed to Regional figures, particularly RER and RATP (or whatever they have just decided to change it to). But the point you make is still very clear!

 

The construction costs per Km, which many like to compare to HS2, on the LGV extensions, do not include land purchase, environmental research and mitigations (other than directly included in construction), planning costs, compensation costs or a myriad of other developmental or allied totals, as these are funded separately and invisibly in many cases. Much the same case was made by the local newspaper, Sud-Ouest, on behalf of the departments who have been arm-twisted into partially funding lines which have no stations within their boundaries. It is also unclear how, when SNCF declared that 19 train pairs was all they could afford to run, given the track access charges dictated by the quasi-PFI that was used to build the LGV Ocean, that the final TT has included apparently 22/23 train pairs. Who is paying the extra costs indeed? I have not read about the Rennes equivalent, so cannot comment. Only the mayor of Angouleme appears to be a happy bunny, having contributed next to Sweet FA.

 

Meanwhile, back on the Great Western......

[corneliuslundie]

Also off topic, but i remember being told years ago that a certain consultancy had a set of designs for Crossrail on its shelves, but it had been shelved. The initial estimated total cost was less than the design cost for the final (admittedly much grander but decades later scheme). And a great deal of that extra cost was due to redesign of what had already been designed. Now i know that H&S matters now push up costs enormously compared with a few years ago, but . . . 

And Thameslink 2000?

Jonathan

[nigel newling]

Great stuff. My son returned to London from Bath this afternoon. I understand from him that every other timetabled train slot was taken by new trains (presumably 800s) running as a "ghost" trains, stopping at the platforms but not embarking passengers. Consequently the HSTs, running in the alternate slots, were loaded to danger point - and that was from Bath! :-(

[Banger Blue]

Great stuff. My son returned to London from Bath this afternoon. I understand from him that every other timetabled train slot was taken by new trains (presumably 800s) running as a "ghost" trains, stopping at the platforms but not embarking passengers. Consequently the HSTs, running in the alternate slots, were loaded to danger point - and that was from Bath! :-(

The 800 weekend diagrams don’t start until the weekend of 28/29th October so if they were 800s they would have been out on test/training runs and therefore not taking up ‘timetabled Train slots’. I don’t think there are enough 800s out in the wild yet to take up every other slot!

 

Realtime Trains shows 5X01 Stoke Gifford - Tiverton / 5X02 Tiverton - Stoke Gifford through Bath Spa yesterday

[Coryton]

The 800 weekend diagrams don’t start until the weekend of 28/29th October so if they were 800s they would have been out on test/training runs and therefore not taking up ‘timetabled Train slots’. I don’t think there are enough 800s out in the wild yet to take up every other slot!

 

Realtime Trains shows 5X01 Stoke Gifford - Tiverton / 5X02 Tiverton - Stoke Gifford through Bath Spa yesterday

 

Given that the London to Cardiff and Bristol routes each run half hourly on weekdays and hourly at weekends, I'd have thought there ought to be some spare paths available on weekends.

 

On the other hand I think the Severn Tunnel is closed at weekends at the moment which will have changed things.

[Northroader]

Used my visa to get through Chepstow today, so had a look out of the window on down that end. You'll be happy to know that there's the same coherent plan being adhered to as was followed up the London end. Nothing spotted to well past STJ, bases appearing about Magor then roughly half the masts up Bishton/ Llanwern. Nothing obvious through Newport barring some concrete plinths going in at Maindee, which might/ might not be for electrification. Getting out past Ebbw Junction, and round pheasants curve, and work starts to show, quite a few masts up, and the stretch from Marshfield on to the freightliner looks very nearly ready for wiring to go in on the relief side. There's a dirty big crane ready to work on the bridge before RRB, and after that into Cardiff you're straining to spot whether any bases have been done.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Northroader

[lmsforever]

They just stick a pin in the map and say right lets plonk a few masts here ,that will keep everyone guessing!

[96701]

They just stick a pin in the map and say right lets plonk a few masts here ,that will keep everyone guessing!

Har de har har.

[The Stationmaster]

They just stick a pin in the map and say right lets plonk a few masts here ,that will keep everyone guessing!

 

They are certainly, and persistently, very good at giving that impression.  Noticeable too on the Badminton line and around Coalpit Heath where there are - yet again - signs of let's do this stage of the job several times over instead of taking it stage by stage over each section.

 

WCML/ECML scheme planning and work progress it definitely is not.

[Trog]

They just stick a pin in the map and say right lets plonk a few masts here ,that will keep everyone guessing!

 

I would suspect that the problem is 50% cock up with dislocation between different contractors all doing their own thing, and because there is no single guiding mind. And 50% because when the BR electrifications were done. The scheme would have been the most important thing being done on that line at the time, and the needed possessions would have been made available with the edges of the train service being altered to suit. Now I suspect that the electrification is of secondary importance to the TOC/FOC's making money, so possessions take much longer to get and what you can have particularly at short notice is even more limited. The number of maintenance activities that used to be carried out during the day between trains but are now booked night possession activities must also soak up a lot of the quiet time where an extra possession could have been slotted in at short notice without causing any problems.

 

The change in safety methods for the electrification work its self also probably has a large impact on the efficiency of the work. Progress would be so much easier if you could still block two roads on which to station your crane and the bolster wagons carrying the booms, then lift the booms into place between trains on the open lines with a bloke with a podging spanner riding on each end of the boom. Then once you have run out the wires, have the droppers fitted and adjusted during the following week between trains by men working from ladders, the lookout removing the ladder leaving the men standing on the contact wire as the trains go past under them.