Network Rail isn't really the issue. They will build it if the DfT give it the go ahead and the funding. NR have to do a lot like procurement, sure they could go straight away to Siemens and buy some kit but they should really put out a tender and take bids from it to get a good deal and so other companies can't complain if they aren't picked.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
DfT Launches Acceleration Unit
- Thread starter LNW-GW Joint
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
pdeaves
Established Member
Well, it depends a bit on the project. NR can be very obstructive with 'not my idea' type projects but yes, to be fair, they can also be very good in the right schemes, too.
If by ‘obstructive’ you mean ‘realisit ’ or ‘Taking a strategic view’, then yes. Could you provide some examples?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I've seen instances where schemes promoted by third parties have new requirements thrown at them. To be charitable it may be because this is a new route to delivery and someone in NR only just realized something needed doing by the third party.
A few years ago now, so old news and the person concerned has probably retired by now, but I was involved in two projects where they were the NR representative. The first time they were very much in favour of the project personally and very keen to get it under way. The second time they weren't and considerably annoyed the client by raising lots of objections later on that contradicted what they'd said earlier and could have been dealt with easily if mentioned at the time.
Another issue is the approach to safety standards. From a project point of view a standard that requires a risk assessment is in itself a risk, because if the assessment fails to justify the intended course of action or fails to be approved then it throws up a new obstacle, probably quite late in the project as these things take time. So, as with the bridge clearances on Edinburgh-Glasgow, projects often decide to swallow the cost and do the proven safe but expensive thing rather than try to go for the more cost-effective alternative.
A few years ago now, so old news and the person concerned has probably retired by now, but I was involved in two projects where they were the NR representative. The first time they were very much in favour of the project personally and very keen to get it under way. The second time they weren't and considerably annoyed the client by raising lots of objections later on that contradicted what they'd said earlier and could have been dealt with easily if mentioned at the time.
Another issue is the approach to safety standards. From a project point of view a standard that requires a risk assessment is in itself a risk, because if the assessment fails to justify the intended course of action or fails to be approved then it throws up a new obstacle, probably quite late in the project as these things take time. So, as with the bridge clearances on Edinburgh-Glasgow, projects often decide to swallow the cost and do the proven safe but expensive thing rather than try to go for the more cost-effective alternative.
pdeaves
Established Member
edwin_m has summed-up some of the issues well.
There is a project I am involved with now; it's not widely publicised and to comply with social media policies I won't name it. To the designers it's an interesting conundrum with a solution, albeit not directly out of a hypothetical 'catalogue of NR solutions'. For five years (and counting) NR has added requirements, changed its corporate mind and generally made life difficult. Corporately it's more interested in 'big, exciting' schemes rather than small 'benefit the community' ones. NR isn't even being asked to fund the design, construction or even the people's time to assess/approve things.
Ok fair enough, but a couple of examples doesn’t mean that an organisation is fundamentally bad.
I could list scores of projects where NR have been accused of being slow or obstructive, when actually the pace of the project has been decided by the client not being willing to pay for what they want, or not understanding what they want in the first place. And sometimes the accusations come from people or organisations who have no idea what they are talking about, and no formal connection with the project.
Class 170101
On Moderation
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,661
To back edwin m and pdreaves up here I am aware of some projects where the predicted start date has shifted to the right simply due to processes and paperwork needed by NR and will not happen without all ducks being in a row yet when it is something of NRs responsibility a late notice possession readily appears with an expectation of the operators agreeing to it and accepting trains being re-timed.
So perhaps NR need to have their processes accelerated or perhaps pruned back?
The only way we find out about the true level of inefficiency (Or not!) of NR is to break it up.
Bare minimum let Scotland have its own NR, which would give some realistic benchmarking.
Couldnt really comment on what else to do without a full analysis of where economies of scale tips over into ‘too big to control/be responsive’. Wales isn’t nearly as separate as Scotland operationally, shame Merseyrail didn’t become integrated.
Bare minimum let Scotland have its own NR, which would give some realistic benchmarking.
Couldnt really comment on what else to do without a full analysis of where economies of scale tips over into ‘too big to control/be responsive’. Wales isn’t nearly as separate as Scotland operationally, shame Merseyrail didn’t become integrated.
Why would you break up NR? what advantages would it bring to have the track owned by many different companies? Just look at the US to see its issues.
NR still have to maintain it and will own it...
Who said many?? I wouldn’t want many as that would be just too messy and risk losing efficiencies of scale (though how significant they are is debatable with so much outsourcing).
NR’s devolution will hopefully help but with a monolithic supplier there is restricted benchmarking and innovation.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,700
Having agreed (I think we do) this is all politics why cannot the DfT actually decide anything? Why do we go round and round expensive "studies" that lead nowhere? SELRAP seems a job creation scheme not for rail but for planners. Is there a study going on at the moment? I've lost track. I don't know if it is a good plan or not, depends if we want Colne to be a suburb of Leeds I guess. Doubtless the Castlefield Corridor will have another study done soon. The Blyth and Tyne seems a pretty obvious one, but it too seems to be at the intermittent study phase. Scotland seems to do better than E&W (in that they've actually built A to B and Borders Rail). Meanwhile we spend money on studies for some pretty obvious non-starters like York to Beverley. Meanwhile volunteers seem able to reopen a preserved railway faster than HMG can a modern one. I'm old enough to remember "Yes Minister" where the civil servants' default mode was to change nothing and, if forced to prevaricate with an inquiry.
I think you answered your own question! Studies are a relatively inexpensive way of looking like you are willing to do stuff.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
To be clear, I'm not accusing NR of that. I certainly don't (and perhaps nobody does) know enough about how it behaves across the full range of potential enhancements. If I had to take a guess I'd say it's more about the corporate culture not being enough to overcome the tendency of individuals to take their own line, and a set of processes where what each party has to do is sometimes open to interpretation. The standards issue I mentioned is a cross-industry rather than NR matter.
In my view the dominant problem is the one I mentioned of political decision-makers and funders taking too long to agree and having to be involved multiple times during the development of a project. At root that's probably down to the centralized culture of the UK (changed someone in recent years but still not enough) where the regional and local interests that have an interest in getting something done have to obtain powers and funding from a centre that doesn't have that motivation.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,003
It's worth remembering the types of organisation Network Rail routinely has to deal with are not reasonably informed enthusiasts, but councils, transport bodies and NGOs who are trying to promote specific schemes, such as re-opening of a mothballed railway line, the re-opening of a station, the replacement of a level crossing, more rail services or freight being switched from road to rail.
They arrive at Network Rail clutching newspaper articles (which we know are, for the most part, written by the intellectually challenged) and Wikipedia articles (no comment) making a wide variety of ridiculous demands and expecting miracles to be worked. They've got the money needed to build an unlit 80m platform but want a 260m train to stop there. They've got a freight line that they want to run a passenger service on and have enough money to subsidise a bus service. They've got a dozen lorries from a dozen different locations which could be consolidated into a liner for 20 miles.
You're called obstructive when you tell someone that because of signalling, or because of a level crossing, or because of a junction, you can't put three coaches onto a 100 metre platform and leave 160m of train blocking a junction. You're accused of trying to make things overly complicated when you point out trains can't call at unlit platforms. Complaints flood in when you tell the local authority that a 20mph freight line will need resignalled, relaid and substantially modified for a 100mph service using a spare HST, which itself will need PRM modifications. Woe betide you for mentioning where you can and can't put a freight terminal, and where you can (and can't) run a W12 liner service. Or why taking 12 lorries off roads every month probably isn't the top priority from the freight development people.
NR are frequently up against the type of people who believed the PR blurb about drivers steering around obstacles or going back to find another route past an obstruction...
They arrive at Network Rail clutching newspaper articles (which we know are, for the most part, written by the intellectually challenged) and Wikipedia articles (no comment) making a wide variety of ridiculous demands and expecting miracles to be worked. They've got the money needed to build an unlit 80m platform but want a 260m train to stop there. They've got a freight line that they want to run a passenger service on and have enough money to subsidise a bus service. They've got a dozen lorries from a dozen different locations which could be consolidated into a liner for 20 miles.
You're called obstructive when you tell someone that because of signalling, or because of a level crossing, or because of a junction, you can't put three coaches onto a 100 metre platform and leave 160m of train blocking a junction. You're accused of trying to make things overly complicated when you point out trains can't call at unlit platforms. Complaints flood in when you tell the local authority that a 20mph freight line will need resignalled, relaid and substantially modified for a 100mph service using a spare HST, which itself will need PRM modifications. Woe betide you for mentioning where you can and can't put a freight terminal, and where you can (and can't) run a W12 liner service. Or why taking 12 lorries off roads every month probably isn't the top priority from the freight development people.
NR are frequently up against the type of people who believed the PR blurb about drivers steering around obstacles or going back to find another route past an obstruction...
Contender for this year's forum "Post of the Year" award (if such a thing existed)
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Who are being encouraged to do so by the current government rhetoric on reversing Beeching.
The examples I've quoted are mostly "serious" rail schemes and as an engineering consultant part of my job is to advise clients of these sorts of constraints before they get near NR. But yes I've been involved in a few absolute no-hopers where we're almost embarrassed to have to consult NR but it's in the remit. One a few years ago (which may not have got to the NR stage) was a particular councilor having a bee in the bonnet about a park and ride station on a line with a handful of trains every day. Everyone including the official who was our client knew it was pointless but we just had to find the cheapest way of going through the motions of what was on the remit and confirming this.
Class 170101
On Moderation
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,661
Technically you have region within NR which should, in theory, be able to benchmark against each other, but somehow I do wonder whether there are brick walls between each depot within a region and resources not shared and never will be.
Spot on. My most recent favourite was the Noble Lord Adonis and Mayor Palmer slating NR for not building Cambridge South station in a year, when it had been been repeatedly pointed out that if that was done trains wouldn’t stop there. But, of course that was NR being ‘lethargic’.
moggie
Member
it (the unit) would probably have the greatest impact if it were inward looking. Process and governance all too often cloaked in the need for safety provides little incentive for NR and its contractors to 'accelerate' and plenty of disincentives. One only has to look at projects of the like of EWR to see the snails pace progress with little involvement from NR. Look for the common link and one will find the root cause. Shaps just needs a mirror.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Reporting and monitoring of Network Rail (e.g. by ORR) is already done by disaggregated regional 'scorecards' in Control Period 6.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I don't think Shapps has any interest in detailed safety/standards issues, other than to ensure that the blame lies elsewhere if there is an accident. That one's down to the proliferation of safety bodies and the "safety ratchet" which prevents any safety measure being removed even if the original reason for it has disappeared. The delay to projects awaiting approval and funding is mainly down to the attitude of central government and the systems they put in place.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Outstanding post. I just had to quote it.
I think some balance is needed here. Your post gives a sense that NR is merely an engineer trying to work in a world of insane suggestions.
While I'm sure there are more than a handful crackpot ideas (I recall the desire, long before Vivarail, where Yorkshire politicos wanted to use District line trains on the Harrogate line).
But there are also other matters where NR don't come off so well. Such as Chiltern being able to build an underpass in a fraction of the time and cost, after being told "not feasible". Or strategic reports dismissing improvement possibilities for metropolitan lines, judging them solely on the current day's (very poor) services. Or renewing track with steel sleepers when the local PTE had expressed a serious interest in funding a third rail project over the line. Or going all in on crackpot political infrastructure schemes that cause, rather than solve, problems.
NR might have to deal with the odd outlandish desire, but the overriding impression I have of them is, as with the DfT itself, an organisation that will do what it wants and not do what it doesn't want, regardless of merit.
An external body coming in and picking apart their plans, questioning why things are taking so long, verifying whether problems really are problems, and generally shaking them down is well overdue in my opinion.
That should be the DfT's job in my opinion with Network Rail sorting out the contracts with private operators, large rolling stock orders like the IEP and Thameslink, etc. instead of the DfT doing it.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,003
Chiltern have undertaken a number of projects, large and small, because they've taken on the financial responsibility for the Schedule 4 and/or Schedule 8 payments themselves, they've also re-worked their own timetables to provide more generous engineering possessions windows, and they have the benefit of a route largely to themselves, so they don't have much in the way of payments outside of the business anyway.
There are similar examples of this elsewhere, Network Rail and First ScotRail (at the behest of Transport Scotland) got together and waived Schedule 4 payments for the Paisley Canal electrification, First Group did an internal deal with themselves and provided 'at-cost' ticket acceptance on First Glasgow buses during periods when trains weren't running, First ScotRail themselves again re-profiled the timetable to provide more engineering access.
That, like Chiltern's works, turned out really well, because the route was only in use by ScotRail at the time (Hawkhead oil terminal being OOU) - it's not anything like as simple with busier routes where several TOCs need access, when engineering windows are dictated by getting the first trains of a depot for ECS and getting the last trains back on a depot for ECS, particularly if you need to fuel them too. The complaints and objections to possession planning are often infuriating, and it wouldn't be the first time a TOC rep turned up complaining an additional possession was needed to undertake some work, complaining about why it couldn't have been done during a previous possession only to have to tell them their predecessor at the TOC objected and it was reprofiled.
Steel sleepers - just checking, was this before or after there was a moratorium on further third rail installations ? I don't particularly like steel sleepers and think they've been poorly deployed by NR in several instances, but DfT wanted cost savings and steel sleepers did the job...
Talking of DfT, there's no way NR can avoid crackpot political infrastructure projects. Spending for the sake of spending, because there's nothing else money can be spent on in a specific location has afflicted the railway for 70 years and will continue to do so. It's a tool too often to buy votes for the incumbent party and/or MP. You just have to try and make sure the money being spent isn't wasted, even if it doesn't strictly need to be spent.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,270
Example “Major projects” in CP4/5
Reading Station rebuild and area track remodelling
London Bridge Station rebuild, Bermondsey area remodelling, Borough Viaduct
But in CP6
St Albans second footbridge... huh?
Reading Station rebuild and area track remodelling
London Bridge Station rebuild, Bermondsey area remodelling, Borough Viaduct
But in CP6
St Albans second footbridge... huh?
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,003
Example “Major projects” in CP4/5
Reading Station rebuild and area track remodelling
London Bridge Station rebuild, Bermondsey area remodelling, Borough Viaduct
But in CP6
St Albans second footbridge... huh?
Major Projects are no longer nested within Control Period settlements.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,270
Well obviously, but spinning the St Albans work as some sort of major national infrastructure improvement is surely stretching the definition?
Unlikely to be extra cost of replacing the track in a third rail electrification scheme isn’t that big in the total cost. The estimate will have risen because the old estimate wasn’t done properly.
I have, personally, overseen the installation of steel sleepers on the North Downs Line. There were no serious proposals for electrification then, and the choice was quite simple - steel sleepers on that section, or put concrete in and lose a job elsewhere that meant a TSR. (Steel sleeper jobs are less than half the cost of concrete, as you don’t dig up the track). I remember saying at the time that I would be retired before that line was electrified (regardless of steel sleepers), and I’m almost certainly going to be right.
- Status