Examples Where Projects Could Have Delivered Significantly More Without Spending More Than "5%" More

[RT4038]

Putting a 4th track down might not have cost much more, but because the Slow line is on the inside of the fast line to serve Rugby station, you'd either have needed to spend a lot more money remodelling Rugby or build a flyover between Rugby and Nuneaton. The short section of 3-track allows the Fast & Slow traffic to filter between each other quite effectively, and also functions as a dynamic loop, allowing signallers to get trains running out of order back in sequence, which would possibly be more awkward with 4 tracks depending on how many crossovers were provided and how the timetable stopping patterns were set up. In the up, Rugby has 2x 775m loops, and 3 platforms to assist in sequencing trains, so the 4-track is less of a constraint.

Maybe it wouldn't have been the £17.5m that was 5% of the TV4T budget (£350m total), but it probably wouldn't have been far off. The gains you would get from it are negligible - less than 10 paths are booked to dwell at Brinklow over an entire day.

After HS2 opens, I doubt those 10 will exist either.

 

[Bald Rick]

I remember regular substitutions as there were not enough 91s

That was because they weren’t as reliable as expected when new.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That was because they weren’t as reliable as expected when new.

Ahhrr ok I hadn’t thought about that.

 

[RT4038]

We will just have to disagree then. I remember regular substitutions as there were not enough 91s. Continuing service to Glasgow Central when Carstairs was electrified etc. 35 would have been a sensible order imho

Would 13% more locomotives only cost 5% extra though, keeping to the thread question?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Would 13% more locomotives only cost 5% extra though, keeping to the thread question?

No you are correct it would have cost about 12-13% more. So 5% more per thread title would give us one and just about 2 possibly. I stand corrected.

 

[Spartacus]

The order of 333s being just enough to replace the 308s, leaving the various versions of "Northern" with a handful of 321s to run the hourly Leeds - Doncaster service (they had three 321s to run a service with a PVR of two, since the tiny 321 fleet meant they needed a spare unit, but maybe just two additional 333s would have been a much more efficient use of stock, given that a bigger fleet of 333s wouldn't have needed the 50% contingency that the 321s had)

It wouldn’t just be a case of ordering 2 more, it’d either need platform lengthening if they were to eventually operate as 4 cars (and I can’t possibly see the money being available for both at the time), or three sets would have had to remain as 3 cars. The 321/9s had only been in service something like 5 years when the 333s were ordered, I doubt anyone seriously entertained ordering a replacement then.

 

[zwk500]

Trent Valley 4 tracking didn’t include the costs ofextendimg the 4th track to Brinklow loop, that was a separate project.

Taking the 4th line to Nuneaton was looked at, but as others have said it was absolutely not the case of ‘laying another track down’. Dozens of bridges would have had to be rebuilt. Most of the OLE gantries would have had to be removed. Significant issues with the canal. I forget how much the estimate was, but £80m feels familiar.

Interesting it was a separate project. Definitely wouldn't have got £80m worth of benefit from it!
My post was one of those saying it's not as simple as slapping track down, I'm well aware of the additional problems involved, just not very well versed in the costs of them.

 

[jumble]

I'm looking for false economies - times when projects could have delivered a lot more for only a marginal (e.g. 5%) increase to the budget.

• New fleet orders that were just a couple of units too short to cover the PVR, meaning that some old trains had to be kept in service
• Electrification that would have delivered significantly more if they'd just wired one station beyond where the wires currently end, or didn't include one chord of a junction/ siding/ passing loop
• Line closures that perplexingly kept most of a branch open whilst closing the busy station at the end
• Routes built with single track sections that would now cost a lot of money to double but it'd have been a lot cheaper at the time the line was built
• "Diesel Islands" (where it'd have been cheaper in the long run to wire a branch than keep a small DMU fleet for a specific duty)
• Ordering slightly too few trains for a line meant that a service had to be diagramed at a slower speed to accommodate other trains (e.g. you might have to time a service for 75mph since you occasionally have to substitute a 150/156 in place of the 90mph 158s that ought to run most duties)

Maybe there were good reasons for the failure to go slightly further at the time (e.g. travel patterns have since changed, we had no idea of future demand, significant house building has changed the nature of a line), maybe there were pressures on costs and someone trimmed the project back to try to keep things on budget, maybe things were never feasible at the time (e.g. a rolling stock manufacturer might have only been able to deliver "x" carriages due to production line pressures, even if it'd have been a lot better if they had build "x + 5%").

Sometimes there will have been justification for things, sometimes it only becomes apparent in hindsight, but I thought a thread might come up with some examples. Please note that this isn't about the kind of "how great XC would have been if Virgin had ordered twice as many Voyagers and they'd all been eight coaches long" / "Beeching should have kept thousands of additional miles of lines open"/ "we should electrify every line in the country" suggestions, it's about very limited ways that could have delivered more (or minor cuts that delivered a disproportionate reduction in benefit). I know that it'd have been better if the 60x4 coach 185s had been built as planned (rather than scaled back to 51x3 coaches with a handful of two coach 170s sourced as a makeweight) - I'd rather that the GWML electrification had gone to all the way to Oxford/ Bristol/ Swansea (rather than stopping at Didcot/ Wooton Bassett/ Cardiff) - but these aren't just minor cuts - I'm more interested in times when projects that fell tantalisingly short of delivering as much as they could have.

Too late now to do much about these things - e.g. the production line of a particular class closes down, it'd be uneconomic to open it up for the sake of a couple of additional trains, you could build more identical ones as regulations have changed since then (e.g. emissions, accessibility) - the electrification team did the main line at the time and it'd be uneconomic to put together a new one just to wire up a short branchline - water under the bridge now - but when could a couple of quid more spent at the time have had a much bigger impact?

Examples I was thinking of:

• Lack of electrification on the Felixstowe branch. When BR wired up the GEML and associated branches, it would only have been around ten additional miles to get down the branch from Ipswich to the docks. Given how busy it is with freight nowadays, I wonder if it was considered for wiring at the time?

• The order of 333s being just enough to replace the 308s, leaving the various versions of "Northern" with a handful of 321s to run the hourly Leeds - Doncaster service (they had three 321s to run a service with a PVR of two, since the tiny 321 fleet meant they needed a spare unit, but maybe just two additional 333s would have been a much more efficient use of stock, given that a bigger fleet of 333s wouldn't have needed the 50% contingency that the 321s had)

• ECML electrification (which was an ambitious project, going all the way from London to Carstairs via York/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh) not having the budget for a few minor extensions like the spur at Morpeth that local trains reverse in (although finding money to wire up the headshunt at the eastern side of Berwick station) - in the context of the overall budget you could have included from the Metro Centre to Sunderland for only fifteen miles of wiring - maybe fans of "diversionary resilience" would want the old route at Selby to have been included?

(I've said 5% above - I appreciate that we don't always know the cost of what may appear a marginal addition to a project - I'm aware that two further 333s would have been more than 5% of the EMU fleet that ATN had - but I mention 5% to give a kind of ball park figure - this is about modest savings/increases rather than getting the crayons out and suggesting that we should have spent billions more on a project)

I'm looking for false economies - times when projects could have delivered a lot more for only a marginal (e.g. 5%) increase to the budget.

• New fleet orders that were just a couple of units too short to cover the PVR, meaning that some old trains had to be kept in service
• Electrification that would have delivered significantly more if they'd just wired one station beyond where the wires currently end, or didn't include one chord of a junction/ siding/ passing loop
• Line closures that perplexingly kept most of a branch open whilst closing the busy station at the end
• Routes built with single track sections that would now cost a lot of money to double but it'd have been a lot cheaper at the time the line was built
• "Diesel Islands" (where it'd have been cheaper in the long run to wire a branch than keep a small DMU fleet for a specific duty)
• Ordering slightly too few trains for a line meant that a service had to be diagramed at a slower speed to accommodate other trains (e.g. you might have to time a service for 75mph since you occasionally have to substitute a 150/156 in place of the 90mph 158s that ought to run most duties)

Maybe there were good reasons for the failure to go slightly further at the time (e.g. travel patterns have since changed, we had no idea of future demand, significant house building has changed the nature of a line), maybe there were pressures on costs and someone trimmed the project back to try to keep things on budget, maybe things were never feasible at the time (e.g. a rolling stock manufacturer might have only been able to deliver "x" carriages due to production line pressures, even if it'd have been a lot better if they had build "x + 5%").

Sometimes there will have been justification for things, sometimes it only becomes apparent in hindsight, but I thought a thread might come up with some examples. Please note that this isn't about the kind of "how great XC would have been if Virgin had ordered twice as many Voyagers and they'd all been eight coaches long" / "Beeching should have kept thousands of additional miles of lines open"/ "we should electrify every line in the country" suggestions, it's about very limited ways that could have delivered more (or minor cuts that delivered a disproportionate reduction in benefit). I know that it'd have been better if the 60x4 coach 185s had been built as planned (rather than scaled back to 51x3 coaches with a handful of two coach 170s sourced as a makeweight) - I'd rather that the GWML electrification had gone to all the way to Oxford/ Bristol/ Swansea (rather than stopping at Didcot/ Wooton Bassett/ Cardiff) - but these aren't just minor cuts - I'm more interested in times when projects that fell tantalisingly short of delivering as much as they could have.

Too late now to do much about these things - e.g. the production line of a particular class closes down, it'd be uneconomic to open it up for the sake of a couple of additional trains, you could build more identical ones as regulations have changed since then (e.g. emissions, accessibility) - the electrification team did the main line at the time and it'd be uneconomic to put together a new one just to wire up a short branchline - water under the bridge now - but when could a couple of quid more spent at the time have had a much bigger impact?

Examples I was thinking of:

• Lack of electrification on the Felixstowe branch. When BR wired up the GEML and associated branches, it would only have been around ten additional miles to get down the branch from Ipswich to the docks. Given how busy it is with freight nowadays, I wonder if it was considered for wiring at the time?

• The order of 333s being just enough to replace the 308s, leaving the various versions of "Northern" with a handful of 321s to run the hourly Leeds - Doncaster service (they had three 321s to run a service with a PVR of two, since the tiny 321 fleet meant they needed a spare unit, but maybe just two additional 333s would have been a much more efficient use of stock, given that a bigger fleet of 333s wouldn't have needed the 50% contingency that the 321s had)

• ECML electrification (which was an ambitious project, going all the way from London to Carstairs via York/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh) not having the budget for a few minor extensions like the spur at Morpeth that local trains reverse in (although finding money to wire up the headshunt at the eastern side of Berwick station) - in the context of the overall budget you could have included from the Metro Centre to Sunderland for only fifteen miles of wiring - maybe fans of "diversionary resilience" would want the old route at Selby to have been included?

(I've said 5% above - I appreciate that we don't always know the cost of what may appear a marginal addition to a project - I'm aware that two further 333s would have been more than 5% of the EMU fleet that ATN had - but I mention 5% to give a kind of ball park figure - this is about modest savings/increases rather than getting the crayons out and suggesting that we should have spent billions more on a project)

Many years ago (Mid 1980s) under British Rail
Track to Train Radio was installed in stages from Kings X to Peterborough
Subcontract company who employed me was buying kit from German Company
BR specified enough kit to go to Sandy
Told by Germans that production was ceasing and that if they were ever going to but extra to buy now
BR declined not and then wanted kit to extend to Peterborough a few months later
Germans said sure but we need to reopen the production line and your cost is now 4 times what it would have been.

 

[py_megapixel]

The Manchester Metrolink was part of Manchester's bid for the Commonwealth Games.

Slightly ironic, therefore, that it didn't serve either of the buildings newly constructed for said games.

Whether serving them would have cost less than 5% extra, though, I don't know.

 

[A0]

It definitely was considered, and proposed as a follow on stage. No idea why it wasn’t delivered; possibly because the wiring crews moved on to the (much more important) ECML? In snooker terminology it was ‘a bad miss’.

I wonder whether the practicality of operating the branch using electrics was the problem ? Not sure the platform lengths on the branch are 4 car, yet the EMUs working to / from Ipswich in those days would have been all 4 car - 312s then 321s whereas Ipswich TMD already had DMUs based there to cover Cambridge and Lowestoft services as well as Felixstowe. There are also a couple of bridges in Ipswich itself which don't look particularly generous space wise.

The bigger 'miss' for me, though it would have been more difficult, is Sudbury - that was a real diesel island - the unit would have had to come from either Ipswich or Stratford ? And in NSE days wasn't it run with a Regional Railways unit ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Trent Valley 4 tracking didn’t include the costs ofextendimg the 4th track to Brinklow loop, that was a separate project.

Taking the 4th line to Nuneaton was looked at, but as others have said it was absolutely not the case of ‘laying another track down’. Dozens of bridges would have had to be rebuilt. Most of the OLE gantries would have had to be removed. Significant issues with the canal. I forget how much the estimate was, but £80m feels familiar.

I expect the M6 overbridge widening wouldn’t be that straightforward...

 

[Ianno87]

The Manchester Metrolink was part of Manchester's bid for the Commonwealth Games.

Not the whole thing; Phase 1 was built 3 years before the bid.

I presume the East Manchester line (usurping the original Glossop Line proposal from 1982) *Was* part of the bid.

The Manchester Airport line has its' origin as part of the unsuccessful 2000 Olympics bid.

 

[Mojo]

Has the City Centre extension cost been less than 5% of the original route?

It’s hard to make a comparison because of massive cost inflation for projects over the ~15 years between the two phases. The budget for the initial section from St George’s (Wolverhampton) to Snow Hill (Birmingham) was £145 Million in 1995 prices. The extension from Snow Hill to New St station was budgeted at £128 Million in 2012.

 

[Ianno87]

It’s hard to make a comparison because of massive cost inflation for projects over the ~15 years between the two phases. The budget for the initial section from St George’s (Wolverhampton) to Snow Hill (Birmingham) was £145 Million in 1995 prices. The extension from Snow Hill to New St station was budgeted at £128 Million in 2012.

From what I can tell, the £128m price for the extension includes the price for complete replacement of the fleet and reconfiguration of the depot that would not have been required had the city centre opened as part of the original line.

The raw cost of the city centre infrastructure seems to be in the region of £54m, including risk and optimism bias (https://www.tfwm.org.uk/media/1212/vfm_case_v100.pdf)

At average 3% compound inflation, the original £145m system price would be about £225m after 15 years

So the City Centre extension plus the extra tram or two required would have been about 25% increase on the original price of Line one, by my rough maths.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Not electrifying the short chord from the GWML to the NLL (Acton Wells?) always seemed like a massive missed opportunity. There's an interesting post over on rmweb as to some of the reasons it hasn't happened (Western Avenue bridge clearance, principally).

 

[The Planner]

After HS2 opens, I doubt those 10 will exist either.

It will probably grow as it will be freight being recessed.

 

[Taunton]

Told by Germans that production was ceasing and that if they were ever going to but extra to buy now
BR declined not and then wanted kit to extend to Peterborough a few months later
Germans said sure but we need to reopen the production line and your cost is now 4 times what it would have been.

That's a classic salesman's tactic. Did nobody know how to play the manufacturer at their own game?

 

[yorksrob]

I understand that Tonbridge - Eridge was closed partially to save the cost of resignalling Grove junction in the Tonbridge - Hastings electrification.

 

[zwk500]

Not electrifying the short chord from the GWML to the NLL (Acton Wells?) always seemed like a massive missed opportunity. There's an interesting post over on rmweb as to some of the reasons it hasn't happened (Western Avenue bridge clearance, principally).

On it's own it doesn't give you anything - there was never going to be a passenger service over it, and any freight using that link runs on non-electrified track at one end or the other (or both). Somebody who knows more about freight flows than me will be able to say if Felixstowe <> Bristol/Cardiff is sufficient to justify electrification, but bear in mind you'd also probably want to do Acton Wells - Willesden No 7 (for Wembley Yard) at the same time. I don't know if the aggregates flows to Acton Yard from the South East area are ever likely to go over to Class 92 haulage (I doubt it) but you'd possibly want to wire the Acton Wells-WLL link as well for good measure.

 

[Shwam3]

I wonder whether the practicality of operating the branch using electrics was the problem ? Not sure the platform lengths on the branch are 4 car, yet the EMUs working to / from Ipswich in those days would have been all 4 car - 312s then 321s whereas Ipswich TMD already had DMUs based there to cover Cambridge and Lowestoft services as well as Felixstowe. There are also a couple of bridges in Ipswich itself which don't look particularly generous space wise.

The bigger 'miss' for me, though it would have been more difficult, is Sudbury - that was a real diesel island - the unit would have had to come from either Ipswich or Stratford ? And in NSE days wasn't it run with a Regional Railways unit ?

The Felixstowe route now carries 80m 755s without any platform extensions (except Westerfield where existing disused platform was reinstated).

 

[DarloRich]

It may as well be 500% if your approvals body wont sign off any extra funding..............................

 

[zwk500]

I understand that Tonbridge - Eridge was closed partially to save the cost of resignalling Grove junction in the Tonbridge - Hastings electrification.

The fundamental reason Tunbridge Wells Central to Eridge closed was because the cost of operating it was out of all proportion to the money made from it (Tonbridge-Tunbridge Wells is still in operation). The entire line had come up for renewal (not just Grove Jn) and the capital cost of renewal was not going to resolve the difference between running costs and revenue. TW already has a better link to London, Groombridge and Eridge are tiny villages and Uckfield and Crowborough already had links to london, where the overwhelming majority of traffic was headed.

 

[yorksrob]

The fundamental reason Tunbridge Wells Central to Eridge closed was because the cost of operating it was out of all proportion to the money made from it (Tonbridge-Tunbridge Wells is still in operation). The entire line had come up for renewal (not just Grove Jn) and the capital cost of renewal was not going to resolve the difference between running costs and revenue. TW already has a better link to London, Groombridge and Eridge are tiny villages and Uckfield and Crowborough already had links to london, where the overwhelming majority of traffic was headed.

I guess that would have been a consideration as well.

On a different note, isn't there an unelectrified siding North of Chathill which prevents the Newcastle - Alnmouth local from going electric ?

 

[Ianno87]

On a different note, isn't there an unelectrified siding North of Chathill which prevents the Newcastle - Alnmouth local from going electric ?

Seems to be a recurring myth on this forum! Chathill is fine as Belford loops are electrified; the problem is the turnback at Morpeth where, for most of the day, the service turns back.

 

[yorksrob]

Seems to be a recurring myth on this forum! Chathill is fine as Belford loops are electrified; the problem is the turnback at Morpeth where, for most of the day, the service turns back.

In that case:

Isn't there an unelectrified turnback siding at Morpeth that's preventing the Newcastle - Anmouth local from going electric ?

 

[zwk500]

In that case:

Isn't there an unelectrified turnback siding at Morpeth that's preventing the Newcastle - Anmouth local from going electric ?

Being extremely pedantic, there is an electrified loop on the down side at Morpeth that they could use, but it's operationally more convenient to use the unelectrified lines on the up (east) side. The Down Slow would force the southbound train to use the down platform, and have a long reoccupation value (running wrong-road for a few miles), as well as prevent regulation of northbound freight if required. Using the branch allows them to use the up platform for southbound departures, as well as keeping well clear of everything whilst laying over.

The problem could be solved with less fuss if they just ran the service through to a station they could reverse electrics at like Chathill! Would probably cost 1 more unit and crew diagram though.

 

[yorksrob]

Being extremely pedantic, there is an electrified loop on the down side at Morpeth that they could use, but it's operationally more convenient to use the unelectrified lines on the up (east) side. The Down Slow would force the southbound train to use the down platform, and have a long reoccupation value (running wrong-road for a few miles), as well as prevent regulation of northbound freight if required. Using the branch allows them to use the up platform for southbound departures, as well as keeping well clear of everything whilst laying over.

The problem could be solved with less fuss if they just ran the service through to a station they could reverse electrics at like Chathill! Would probably cost 1 more unit and crew diagram though.

It seems a shame that for such a small length of knitting, they could use one of the many fleets of redundant electric stock being retired !

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems a shame that for such a small length of knitting, they could use one of the many fleets of redundant electric stock being retired !

It does surprise me that a 75mph DMU (it's usually a 156, isn't it?) can be fitted in on the ECML. Though using a 195 (2-car would be fine) would solve that.

 

[yorksrob]

It does surprise me that a 75mph DMU (it's usually a 156, isn't it?) can be fitted in on the ECML. Though using a 195 (2-car would be fine) would solve that.

If they can fit a 75mph DMU down there, I'm sure they can manage a 319 or some such.

 

[Anvil1984]

It does surprise me that a 75mph DMU (it's usually a 156, isn't it?) can be fitted in on the ECML. Though using a 195 (2-car would be fine) would solve that.

It can be a 158 (90 mph unit)like this morning but timed for a 75 mph unit in case only a slower unit is available