Network Rail upgrade delayed by government (BBC News Article)

[richardio123]

The government says it will delay or cut back a number of modernisation projects planned for Network Rail.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin says rising costs and missed targets make the £38.5bn plan untenable.

He blamed Network Rail, saying it should have foreseen the improvements would cost more and take longer.

Network Rail said the plan, which was launched last year as the "largest modernisation of the railways since Victorian times", was too ambitious.

The key routes affected are:

• Trans-Pennine route: York-Manchester, shelved
• Midland main line: York-Sheffield, shelved
• Great Western main line work will go ahead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33270586

 

[Deepgreen]

Announced just now that Sir Peter Hendy (currently Commissioner of Transport for London) is to become Network Rail Chair from 16 July. As a well-experienced transport professional and enthusiast this has the potential to be a welcome appointment.

 

[quantinghome]

Peter Hendy (TfL) to become new NR chairman.

 

[cjmillsnun]

And yet no cancellation of HS2

 

[quantinghome]

And yet no cancellation of HS2

How exactly would that help? The delays and cost overruns NR faces are all to do with upgrading the existing railway, with all the complexities of dealing with ancient Victorian infrastructure and having to work around the huge restrictions of an operational railway. These delays sound the death knell to the argument 'why can't we just upgrade the existing railway?'. Cancelling HS2 would mean more upgrade work would need to be undertaken on the existing network, making the problem worse, not better.

 

[Mikey C]

By the sound of things they've finally admitted that with the cost and time overruns, the £38.5bn simply won't achieve all they had hoped for.
Some tough decisions to be made as to priorities...

 

[LLivery]

How exactly would that help? The delays and cost overruns NR faces are all to do with upgrading the existing railway, with all the complexities of dealing with ancient Victorian infrastructure and having to work around the huge restrictions of an operational railway. These delays sound the death knell to the argument 'why can't we just upgrade the existing railway?'. Cancelling HS2 would mean more upgrade work would need to be undertaken on the existing network, making the problem worse, not better.

The sheer amount of money for HS2 can't be palatable. I can see the West Yorks branch being cut. Its not really needed.

 

[LTJ87]

Full text of speech:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/network-rails-performance

MML Electrification will be "paused".

 

[LLivery]

Announced just now that Sir Peter Hendy (currently Commissioner of Transport for London) is to become Network Rail Chair from 16 July. As a well-experienced transport professional and enthusiast this has the potential to be a welcome appointment.

Well at least he can make Southeastern less "sh*t".

 

[CdBrux]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/network-rails-performance

Statement to the House of Commons:

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Network Rail following today’s (25 June 2015) publication of their annual report.

In September 2014 Network Rail was reclassified as a public body as result of an accounting decision by the Office of National Statistics.

Since then the government has had greater direct oversight of the company.

I want to report to the House on Network Rail’s performance and the actions that I am taking to hold it to account.

Some things are working well.

Our railways are carrying more passengers than ever before.

Journeys have more than doubled since privatisation.

They went up on average by 4.2% in the last year alone.

Safety has improved.

The reliability of assets on the railway is up.

Network Rail reopened the line at Dawlish after the horrendous storms in the time expected.

It has opened the new station at Reading – ahead of schedule and under budget.

A modernised Birmingham New Street complex will be fully open later this year.

But I do not pretend everything is perfect. Because it isn’t.

Where performance has fallen below the standards expected, I want that sorted out.

What we saw at Kings Cross at Christmas and at London Bridge earlier this year was unacceptable.

I said so at the time.

Since then, Network Rail has demonstrated that they have learned these lessons. And I pay tribute to the significant programmes of work they delivered over Easter and the May Bank Holidays.

But to improve performance we need to invest and we need good management.

The truth is that much of the work should have been done decades ago.

Successive governments failed to invest the sums necessary in our rail network.

That is why we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

And so when we faced a choice between building the infrastructure our country needs, or our railway becoming a brake on growth and opportunity, we chose to invest for the future.

In things such as Crossrail in London and HS2 for the country.

And that is why in 2012, the government set out the most ambitious programme since the Victorians.

A £38 billion programme on enhancing, operating and maintaining the current network.

It means hard work and good design.

Thousands of people working night after night, sometimes in very difficult conditions.

On the 216 miles Great Western line alone Network Rail needs to alter around 170 bridges.

Lower parts of the track bed.

And install 14,000 masts of overhead line equipment.

Electrifying parts of the railway constructed by Brunel in the 1830s.

So that new British-built fast trains can speed up services and provide more seats.

Members and their constituents want these improvements.

I am determined that they happen.

But in parts of this programme Network Rail’s performance has not been good enough.

Already, the Chief Executive and Board are responding.

Since joining Network Rail in 2014 the Chief Executive Mark Carne has reviewed the organisation’s structure, performance and accountability.

He has strengthened his team.

He has a structure for improvement.

I want to see him drive that forward.

But there are still challenges.

Important aspects of Network Rail’s investment programme are costing more and taking longer.

Electrification is difficult.

The UK supply chain for the complex signalling works needs to be stronger.

Construction rates have been slow.

It has taken longer to obtain planning consents from some local authorities than expected.

But that is no excuse.

All of these problems could and should have been foreseen by Network Rail.

So I want to inform the House of the action I am taking to reset this programme and get it back on track.

First, none of Network Rail’s Executive Directors will receive a bonus for the past year.

The current Chairman, Mr Richard Parry-Jones, is stepping down.

His replacement will be the current Transport Commissioner in London Sir Peter Hendy.

Someone of huge experience.

Who helped keep London moving during the Olympics.

I am asking him to develop proposals by the Autumn for how the rail upgrade programme will be carried out.

Second, I am appointing Richard Brown as a Special Director of Network Rail with immediate effect.

He will update me directly on progress.

Third, I intend to simplify Network Rail’s governance by ending the role of the Public Members.

I thank them for their commitment.

But the reclassification of Network Rail has changed the organisation’s accountability.

Fourth, it is important that we understand what can be done better in future investment programmes.

I have therefore asked Dame Colette Bowe, an experienced economist and regulator, to look at lessons learned.

And to make recommendations for better investment planning in future.

I will publish her report in the Autumn.

I know members on all sides of the House value the improvements that are planned to the railway in their area.

Network Rail’s spending should stay within its funding allowance.

Electrification of the Great Western Line is a top priority.

And I want Network Rail to concentrate its efforts on getting that right.

On the Midland mainline better services can be delivered on that line before electrification.

With things such as speed improvement works.

So work on electrification will be paused.

I want it to be done and done well.

It will be part of our future plans for the route.

Meanwhile, the next franchise for the Transpennine route between Leeds and Manchester will bring modern trains and additional capacity.

Current work on electrification will be paused.

Because we need to be much more ambitious for that route.

Building a powerhouse for the north.

With a fast high capacity Transpennine electric route.

We are working with businesses and cities in the north to make that happen.

Just as in the north we have already seen electric trains introduced this year between Liverpool and Manchester; and between Liverpool and Wigan.

Soon we will see them spread further.

To Bolton. To Blackpool. And that work is underway.

Meanwhile, in the south east, Crossrail and Thameslink are well under way.

In Anglia we will bring about modern, faster trains to Ipswich and Norwich in the next franchise.

For passengers in the south west the new contract with First Great Western will provide significant extra capacity.

I hope to be able to announce news on further new trains for the region soon.

We will also keep commuter rail fares capped in real terms for the whole of this Parliament.

People’s earnings will rise more quickly than rail fares.

The first time that has happened since 2002.

Mr Speaker, passengers want a railway that is better, faster and more reliable than today.

Powered by a huge increase in investment and ambition right across the country.

That is what they will get.

And I commend this statement to the House

 

[Haydn1971]

As I suggested a few days back - TransPennine paused because of the bigger more ambitious plans.

Given the issues on WCML, it's entirely feasible that a new TransPennine line would be build faster and for less than faffing with the existing route.

 

[cjmillsnun]

How exactly would that help? The delays and cost overruns NR faces are all to do with upgrading the existing railway, with all the complexities of dealing with ancient Victorian infrastructure and having to work around the huge restrictions of an operational railway. These delays sound the death knell to the argument 'why can't we just upgrade the existing railway?'. Cancelling HS2 would mean more upgrade work would need to be undertaken on the existing network, making the problem worse, not better.

Billions to be spent on public enquiries and compulsory purchases before one rail is laid which could be better spent on our existing infrastructure.

 

[Haydn1971]

Although his pitching about the 319's being a great step forward for the Northern Powerhouse doesn't leave me full of confidence ! Haha

 

[swt_passenger]

The sheer amount of money for HS2 can't be palatable.

Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to NR's present issues. It's a completely separate government funding stream to NR's enhancement budget.

As discussed routinely in many of the HS2 threads (in the relevant sub-forum), it isn't a sum that exists and must be spent, and automatically becomes available for other things such as Health or Education, or even conventional rail. The anti-HS2 people's signs all over the Chilterns have always made this fundamental error.

 

[infobleep]

Will this impact on future projects such as Cross Rail 2, which is still in the design stage I believe.

Would it be possible to make infrastructure changes that were cheaper to put in or is that a false economy?

If the MML is not electrified, how does that impact o rolling stock and rolling stock contracts and/or cascades?

 

[quantinghome]

Billions to be spent on public enquiries and compulsory purchases before one rail is laid which could be better spent on our existing infrastructure.

I'm more than happy for you to air your opinion. Good for you. But if you want to convince people you're going to have to provide some evidence that a viable upgrade solution exists which could give the same or better improvements than HS2 on the same or lower budget.

Today's news provides more evidence of the difficulties in upgrading existing infrastructure and why HS2 is to be preferred as a strategy for relieving our congestion intercity routes.

 

[EM2]

Mr McLoughlin seems a little confused.
He says:

But to improve performance we need to invest and we need good management.
The truth is that much of the work should have been done decades ago.
Successive governments failed to invest the sums necessary in our rail network.
That is why we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.
And so when we faced a choice between building the infrastructure our country needs, or our railway becoming a brake on growth and opportunity, we chose to invest for the future.
In things such as Crossrail in London and HS2 for the country.
And that is why in 2012, the government set out the most ambitious programme since the Victorians.
A £38 billion programme on enhancing, operating and maintaining the current network.

And then says he's 'pausing' large chunks of that investment. Seems very odd.
And what does this mean for rolling stock on the MML? Refurbished HST? LHCS? Bi-mode IEP running in diesel mode?

 

[LLivery]

Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to NR's present issues. It's a completely separate government funding stream to NR's enhancement budget.

As discussed routinely in many of the HS2 threads (in the relevant sub-forum), it isn't a sum that exists and must be spent, and automatically becomes available for other things such as Health or Education, or even conventional rail. The anti-HS2 people's signs all over the Chilterns have always made this fundamental error.

At a time when everything is being cut to the bone, the money planned for HS2 isn't palatable. No matter which of the departments spends it - public opinion will give them a massive battering. I never said the money will be diverted to the current network

 

[quantinghome]

Will this impact on future projects such as Cross Rail 2, which is still in the design stage I believe.

Probably none. It's going to be needed to cope with London's growth.

Would it be possible to make infrastructure changes that were cheaper to put in or is that a false economy?

No - the route is entirely new through the centre of London, so there is no alternative upgrade. The Victoria line has already been upgraded and not much more can be done to improve it.

If the MML is not electrified, how does that impact o rolling stock and rolling stock contracts and/or cascades?

Quite significantly, I would imagine.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Mr McLoughlin seems a little confused.
He says:
And then says he's 'pausing' large chunks of that investment. Seems very odd.
And what does this mean for rolling stock on the MML? Refurbished HST? LHCS? Bi-mode IEP running in diesel mode?

Network Rail is incapable of delivering the projects either in time or for the money.
At the very least NR will have to stay within the £38 billion and deliver the best they can for it in CP5.
It looks as though that will be the position until the 2017 round of CP6 planning starts (for 2019-24).

 

[infobleep]

Probably none. It's going to be needed to cope with London's growth.



No - the route is entirely new through the centre of London, so there is no alternative upgrade. The Victoria line has already been upgraded and not much more can be done to improve it.



Quite significantly, I would imagine.

I was thinking more general for the infrastructure changes being done cheaply than just Cross Rail 2.

As for the one in London being needed. I feel we could do with it now and we can't have it now. Therefore if we can't have it now and we have to cope without it, isn't their a possibility they could say you've coped this long so a few extra years won't make to much difference?

 

[CdBrux]

And then says he's 'pausing' large chunks of that investment. Seems very odd.

Seems like good project management to me. If some projects (GWML) are running into serious overspends and delays then it makes sense to pause other similar projects to ensure lessons learned are applied and the same mistakes are not made again.

Of course there are then knock on effects to rolling stock that need to be understood as part of the review, but even if difficult, best to know that now and not be scrabbling about with short notice if the project starts on time and takes much longer than forseen (although there should always be contingency planning for that).

 

[quantinghome]

At a time when everything is being cut to the bone, the money planned for HS2 isn't palatable. No matter which of the departments spends it - public opinion will give them a massive battering. I never said the money will be diverted to the current network

That's an argument for not investing in anything.

Anyway, contrary to what they claim, the government isn't cutting everything to the bone. They have clearly chosen to cut certain things and spend on others. They are spending on infrastructure generally and HS2 is a part of that.

Two numbers to ponder: UK govt spend is £750bn per year; HS2 is £2.5bn per year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seems like good project management to me. If some projects (GWML) are running into serious overspends and delays then it makes sense to pause other similar projects to ensure lessons learned are applied and the same mistakes are not made again.

Agreed. It would have been better if NR has realised this in 2009. Get one electrification scheme done, learn the lessons, get the high output train working, then roll out.

 

[tbtc]

The sheer amount of money for HS2 can't be palatable

At a time when everything is being cut to the bone, the money planned for HS2 isn't palatable. No matter which of the departments spends it - public opinion will give them a massive battering. I never said the money will be diverted to the current network

Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to NR's present issues. It's a completely separate government funding stream to NR's enhancement budget.

As discussed routinely in many of the HS2 threads (in the relevant sub-forum), it isn't a sum that exists and must be spent, and automatically becomes available for other things such as Health or Education, or even conventional rail. The anti-HS2 people's signs all over the Chilterns have always made this fundamental error.

Aye, this really is nothing to do with HS2, despite that way that some people (LeeLivery) will jump on any excuse to moan about it.

The announcement shows the problems of investing in an existing railway (dealing with Victorian infrastructure, fitting engineering works around a busy railway) - if anything you could argue that that *strengthens* the case for brand new lines. And, if you're going to be building brand new lines, you might as well make them capable of accommodating High Speed services...

As I suggested a few days back - TransPennine paused because of the bigger more ambitious plans.

Given the issues on WCML, it's entirely feasible that a new TransPennine line would be build faster and for less than faffing with the existing route.

Yeah - the TransPennine cancellation bothers me less than the MML cancellation because (whilst the MML infrastructure is generally pretty sound) the TPE route could do with a lot of changes before we start wiring it.

Wire up the 2015 MML and you potentially have a railway fit for decades.

Wire up the 2015 TransPennine route and you lock us into the same bottlenecks/ twisty lines/ conflicts with local services/ flat junctions... maybe its time to go back to the drawing board, rather than setting things in stone on the TransPennine route (because, let's face it, when you electrify a route you make it significantly harder to tinker with things at a later date).

(there are some bits of the MML that could do with tweaks - I certainly wouldn't say no to four tracks in the Sheaf Valley and I think that the approach to Derby station is a mess, but it doesn't need the surgery that the TransPennine route does)

Billions to be spent on public enquiries and compulsory purchases before one rail is laid which could be better spent on our existing infrastructure.

What upgrades would you make on existing infrastructure (beyond those already planned)?

How would you avoid it running into the same problems that NR have had in upgrading existing infrastructure?

in the north we have already seen electric trains introduced this year between Liverpool and Manchester; and between Liverpool and Wigan

Although his pitching about the 319's being a great step forward for the Northern Powerhouse doesn't leave me full of confidence ! Haha

I think you're overplaying his comment somewhat... despite the moans from those west of the Pennines on this Forum, nobody serious seems to be pretending that 319s are going to solve everything in the long term - they're perfectly adequate 150 replacements though.

Mr McLoughlin seems a little confused.
He says:

And then says he's 'pausing' large chunks of that investment. Seems very odd.
And what does this mean for rolling stock on the MML? Refurbished HST? LHCS? Bi-mode IEP running in diesel mode?

Agreed.

Buy shares in bi-mode trains, that's my advice!

 

[waterlooroader]

Any thoughts on how the announcement will affect the modernisation of signalling on the current network? (Specifically the closure of signal boxes and the move to ROCs)

 

[Grimsby town]

This leaves some unanswered questions. Are the whole projects paused or will parts go ahead like Bedford to Corby and York/Selby to Leeds.

If York to Leeds isn't done does this mean that VTEC and Alliances bids to use Hambleton can't be accommodated due to capacity. Hs3 won't make a huge difference to the need of this line to be electrified as still and important commuter line so why not just get it done now.

 

[PR1Berske]

I take from this statement that the North will suffer whilst London still enjoys HS2. A sad day for investment priorities.

 

[47802]

Mr McLoughlin seems a little confused.
He says:


And then says he's 'pausing' large chunks of that investment. Seems very odd.
And what does this mean for rolling stock on the MML? Refurbished HST? LHCS? Bi-mode IEP running in diesel mode?

Presumably it will be up to the bidders for the new EMT franchise with no doubt some guidance from Dft, but I guess that not going to stop pages and pages of loopy suggestions on here

 

[quantinghome]

This leaves some unanswered questions. Are the whole projects paused or will parts go ahead like Bedford to Corby and York/Selby to Leeds.

If York to Leeds isn't done does this mean that VTEC and Alliances bids to use Hambleton can't be accommodated due to capacity. Hs3 won't make a huge difference to the need of this line to be electrified as still and important commuter line so why not just get it done now.

It depends on whether any upgrades east of Leeds are planned for HS3. If for example there was a plan to four-track from Leeds to Micklefield, maybe you'd want to delay electrification and do it all at once. Or, if electrification was needed sooner, it could be done with passive provision for future works, avoiding rebuilding later.

 

[LLivery]

Aye, this really is nothing to do with HS2, despite that way that some people (LeeLivery) will jump on any excuse to moan about it.

That's an argument for not investing in anything.

Hang on, I'm not against HS2. I'm just stating the simple fact that right now the public appetite for HS2 when there are huge cuts and NR costs are spiralling (even if they aren't the same people building HS2) is very low. However, if you spent 2bn extra a year on education, health or indeed the current network the public opinion will be better. Not saying it would be spent there.

The announcement shows the problems of investing in an existing railway (dealing with Victorian infrastructure, fitting engineering works around a busy railway) - if anything you could argue that that *strengthens* the case for brand new lines. And, if you're going to be building brand new lines, you might as well make them capable of accommodating High Speed services...

It doesn't really. Costs spiralling on the GWML electrification making the argument for HS2 stronger or any other new line is beyond me. I just think it strengthens the argument for less fragmentation and bureaucracy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This leaves some unanswered questions. Are the whole projects paused or will parts go ahead like Bedford to Corby and York/Selby to Leeds.

If York to Leeds isn't done does this mean that VTEC and Alliances bids to use Hambleton can't be accommodated due to capacity. Hs3 won't make a huge difference to the need of this line to be electrified as still and important commuter line so why not just get it done now.

Sir Peter has to come with a new plan timeline to present the works. Then I think your question will be answered. I don't think most Northerners believe HS3 is ever going to happen.