DfT Launches Acceleration Unit

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think the 3rd rail project with steel sleepers was on the Wirral/NE Wales (Bidston-Wrexham, Merseyrail/TfW), now waiting for its class 230s.
Compounded by events down the road on the Chester-Wrexham redoubling (a "third party project") where NR only did half a job.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I think the 3rd rail project with steel sleepers was on the Wirral/NE Wales (Bidston-Wrexham, Merseyrail/TfW), now waiting for its class 230s.
Compounded by events down the road on the Chester-Wrexham redoubling (a "third party project") where NR only did half a job.

The problem with third rail electrification in the Wirral/NE Wales area was the serious consideration being given to electrification to Chester at the time all of this was ongoing, so third rail works were including a lot of additional checks and measures to ensure it didn't make 25kV to Chester and the start of an electrification scheme on the North Wales Coast unviable.

It's a problem largely solved by the procurement of dual voltage capable Stadler rolling stock, of course, and we are, where we are, with no further electrification anywhere.

 

[bluenoxid]

It happened before the moratorium, and was followed by a grossly inflated cost estimate for the electrification which scuppered the previously viable project. NR just didn't want to do it.

PTE, third rail, massive cost escalations. Wrexham-Bidston?

Beaten to it

 

[Camden]

The problem with third rail electrification in the Wirral/NE Wales area was the serious consideration being given to electrification to Chester at the time all of this was ongoing, so third rail works were including a lot of additional checks and measures to ensure it didn't make 25kV to Chester and the start of an electrification scheme on the North Wales Coast unviable.

It's a problem largely solved by the procurement of dual voltage capable Stadler rolling stock, of course, and we are, where we are, with no further electrification anywhere.

Apart from in Wrexham, the lines do not interact.

As for the "serious consideration" conflicts at all, the PTE was all ready to bid for £100m of tax increment funding to get it built, while the plans for North Wales coast electrification got where?

 

[Belperpete]

Or renewing track with steel sleepers when the local PTE had expressed a serious interest in funding a third rail project over the line.

If the PTE actually had the funding in place to pay NR for concrete instead of steel at the time NR needed to do the renewal, then I might have agreed with you. Otherwise, you are expecting NR to speculate with tax-payers money, paying considerably more for something for which there is currently no authorisation, and for which they would rightly have got slated for if the electrification never went ahead.

I have worked on several projects, large and small, that have been outside funded, and NR can at times seem less than helpful. But, with limited resources at their disposal, is it reasonable to expect them to give priority to someone else's project over all the in-house work that they currently have waiting to be done? Inevitably, if scarce resources (such as signal engineers) have to be found for one project, it means pulling them off another project. In most cases, problems arise because third parties have inflated ideas of how important their project is, compared to all the others that NR have to resource.

And, as a previous poster pointed out, outside parties also seem to have a very blinkered approach, failing to realise that if you want to change something, it is likely to impact on a number of other things, that will require updating or altering in consequence, and they are reluctant to pay these consequential costs. But why should NR shoulder these costs for someone else's project? Discussions about consequential changes, outside the immediate scope, have often became very taut at times, particularly when things are found subsequent to the main contract being let.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2020 ==

Compounded by events down the road on the Chester-Wrexham redoubling (a "third party project") where NR only did half a job.

Are you saying that NR did less than they were paid by the "third party" to do?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are you saying that NR did less than they were paid by the "third party" to do?

The "third party" was the Welsh Government.
It's a long story but NR quoted a cost and WG stumped up that amount (£45 million from memory).
Having started, NR then said it would cost significantly more, and when told there was no more cash, stopped half way at Rossett and also failed to upgrade all the old track.
There were also repeated delays involving signalling at level crossings.
Throughout, NR didn't seem to care, and it left a sour taste locally and with WG.
Capacity has been marginally improved, but nothing like what double track throughout would have delivered (as at Loughor).
This was almost a decade ago now, when rail devolution wasn't a thing.
Now WG calls more shots over funding (and has taken over the Core Valley Lines), so NR now has to pay more attention.
Very few extra trains have run to use the new capacity, though reliability over the remaining single line is better.
New services to Liverpool will use the line, if they ever start (there's just one peak service each way now).

 

[Camden]

I think the solution is to allow "third parties" (PTEs, combined authorities, governments) to put their rail infrastructure projects out to competitive tender. If a rail project meets a regional objective and can be made to be value for money, why should NR be in any position to scupper it. If that means RENFE gets the contract to third rail from Kirkby to Wigan or Danish engineers are flown over to remodel Liverpool Central, so be it.

 

[Meerkat]

I think the solution is to allow "third parties" (PTEs, combined authorities, governments) to put their rail infrastructure projects out to competitive tender. If a rail project meets a regional objective and can be made to be value for money, why should NR be in any position to scupper it. If that means RENFE gets the contract to third rail from Kirkby to Wigan or Danish engineers are flown over to remodel Liverpool Central, so be it.

But the infrastructure is NR’s.
if you were renting out your house would you let the tenants get the builders in without you having approval of the plans etc?

 

[Camden]

But the infrastructure is NR’s.
if you were renting out your house would you let the tenants get the builders in without you having approval of the plans etc?

The infrastructure is Britain's. Subsequently, one could argue, the property of the various devolved governments. If the attitude is that the rails are NR property, rather than under NR custodianship, then that really does show an attitude this "acceleration" squad will need to deal with.

 

[Bayum]

If I was looking for someone to take charge of a body to accelerate the development of major railway projects, I would be looking for a hard bitten cynic who had lots of experience of the development and control of major railway projects, or at least similar experience in a relevant industry.
The last person I would be appointing is someone whose career seems to be largely as a lobbyist with no obvious large project control (or indeed other) management experience

That would be common sense. Therein lies the brunt of the problem.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The infrastructure is Britain's. Subsequently, one could argue, the property of the various devolved governments. If the attitude is that the rails are NR property, rather than under NR custodianship, then that really does show an attitude this "acceleration" squad will need to deal with.

NR has a licence from the ORR to be the custodian of specific "national" rail infrastructure assets, which is ultimately owned by the DfT.
This excludes HS1 (where NR is the maintainer/operator for the DfT agent L&CR), and probably will exclude HS2 as well.
The licence is renewed periodically and can be revoked (ORR does prosecute NR over licence violations).
The devolved governments don't generally (yet) own their infrastructure, but the Core Valley Lines in Wales have just transferred from NR to the WG (TfW).
It's different in Northern Ireland.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the solution is to allow "third parties" (PTEs, combined authorities, governments) to put their rail infrastructure projects out to competitive tender.

They can and do. And they almost always come to grief, and ask NR to finish it for them. See Metrowest, Borders, countless new stations, etc.

 

[Mordac]

NR has a licence from the ORR to be the custodian of specific "national" rail infrastructure assets, which is ultimately owned by the DfT.
This excludes HS1 (where NR is the maintainer/operator for the DfT agent L&CR), and probably will exclude HS2 as well.
The licence is renewed periodically and can be revoked (ORR does prosecute NR over licence violations).
The devolved governments don't generally (yet) own their infrastructure, but the Core Valley Lines in Wales have just transferred from NR to the WG (TfW).
It's different in Northern Ireland.

I wonder if anyone's tried to benchmark NR's costings with Translink's

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I wonder if anyone's tried to benchmark NR's costings with Translink's

I'd love to see them try, starting with sleepers and moving swiftly on to electrification...

 

[Mollman]

The infrastructure is Britain's. Subsequently, one could argue, the property of the various devolved governments. If the attitude is that the rails are NR property, rather than under NR custodianship, then that really does show an attitude this "acceleration" squad will need to deal with.

But isn't it then Network Rail's responsibility to maintain whatever the 3rd party has installed / built? If so then they need a say to ensure that they are not left to fix all the faults that were inherent in the plan - see lots of buildings that 3rd parties have built for councils who are then left to fix issues caused by roofs that look nice but don't work or toilets that had a unique operating method which meant they flooded all the time.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Merseytravel, after years of moaning, were in the position to take over Merseyrail's infrastructure from NR, but backed out at the 11th hour.
Footing the bill for replacing slab track in the Loop tunnels (and other expensive maintenance issues on Victorian infrastructure) might have had something to do with it.

When infrastructure does transfer to the locals, like Metrolink (ie Altrincham, Bury and Oldham lines) they usually find there is a lot more to the job that they thought.
The Ebbw Vale line was converted for passenger use locally, but it then took an age to get it to a specification which NR would accept to allow operation.

I see from today's Modern Railways that the TfW/Keolis-Amey Core Valley Lines upgrade project is already in trouble and may have to be rescoped/rescheduled, and the EU part of the funding is at risk because of the delay.

 

[Camden]

Despite the vague wibble about tunnel costs at the time (like they just realised they had tunnels...) it was a political decision to appease their union pals. The city at the time had just been taken over by less progressive forces than those who had been pursuing vertical integration.

So I don't think that Merseytravel turning down VI is a good example re showing the value of NR. In fact, I think the reverse. Given the city's long term rail aspirations, just how much easier, cheaper and faster would it have been to get new stations built, perhaps even new lines, versus today. They've managed to build just one surface station in the past 10 years. Compare that rate of progress to Metrolink, or even Midland Metro.

Liabilities exist, sure, but so should matching sinking funds and policies to take care of those. Being a torchbearer for an approach the government would have wanted to see rolled out further, it is overwhelmingly likely the government would have bent over backwards to make it a success.

If the acceleration unit can find ways to introduce even half the amount of agility found outside the NR world, it will be worth it.

 

[Meerkat]

Being a torchbearer for an approach the government would have wanted to see rolled out further, it is overwhelmingly likely the government would have bent over backwards to make it a success.

Or ‘look what happens when you let a Labour authority control anything - these northerners can’t be trusted with money’

 

[Camden]

Or ‘look what happens when you let a Labour authority control anything - these northerners can’t be trusted with money’

Doesn't seem to happen with Manchester, which is much more "Labour" than Liverpool. In fact, they have become so interwoven with the government in recent years that at times it is hard to see where a government department's work ends and Manchester's officials' begin.

 

[mcmad]

Interesting to compare the wailing and finger pointing South of the Border whereas in Scotland, Network Rail and the government have quietly got on with upgrading existing line including elecrification, opening new stations and lines. Perhaps the problem isn't with Network Rail but with those issuing the funding?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Interesting to compare the wailing and finger pointing South of the Border whereas in Scotland, Network Rail and the government have quietly got on with upgrading existing line including elecrification, opening new stations and lines. Perhaps the problem isn't with Network Rail but ------

Exactly what I was thinking too. Scotland just gets it done.

 

[Camden]

Indeed. Maybe they should have been in charge of building the Edinburgh tramway...

 

[mcmad]

The Edinburgh tram saga is the perfect example of what happens when a local authority does engage a private contractor on a major infrastructure project that the council has a limited understanding the workings and processes

 

[Camden]

And yet other cities have done so very well. I'm afraid there is no example which shows NR to be canny reliable deliverers. That others also foul up from time to time does nothing to take away the fact that NR take an age to do anything, and cost a packet.

 

[Bald Rick]

And yet other cities have done so very well. I'm afraid there is no example which shows NR to be canny reliable deliverers. That others also foul up from time to time does nothing to take away the fact that NR take an age to do anything, and cost a packet.

I’m reminded of the Midland Metro proposal for an east side (of Birmingham) extension, which was publicised in the early 90s. I wonder how that went.

 

[mcmad]

And yet other cities have done so very well. I'm afraid there is no example which shows NR to be canny reliable deliverers. That others also foul up from time to time does nothing to take away the fact that NR take an age to do anything, and cost a packet.

Other than the large majority of projects which get delivered without fuss, on time and budget? But that doesn’t suit your NR bad agenda of course.

 

[WatcherZero]

Another example the Salford Central platform reinstatement. NR took £20m from TfGM to reinstate the former platforms 3, 4 & 5, they managed to restore them as through lines but then came back and said they would need another £20m from the local authority to reinstate the extra platforms as they had underestimated the cost of signalling and they had burned the original £20m on enhancing platform 1&2 facilities and so couldnt return the money for a job not completed.