Further Electrification in the North West - Details announced

[DaveNewcastle]

What puzzles me, and you may be able to elucidate for me, OT, is the apparent care NR take in researching needs and trends, and planning appropriate developments. I've posted links to well researched docs in the past, but here's another letter as a neutral example from NR to ORR which gives an insight into the quality (or not) of their analysis and planning.
letter NT to ORR Re: RUS 20 Dec 07
Its exactly 2 years old, so we have the benefit of some hindsight to be critical, and its just an example - but, just where do we identify the errors? In the research, the analysis, evaluation of options, their understanding of the impact of works, . . . . ?
Like many on here, I am happy to criticise after the event, but I do struggle to find the right approach in planning which would avoid blunders. And usually, I can't see how I could have planned things differently.
Can you pinpoint where things start to go wrong for me?

 

[Old Timer]

I would suggest part of the problem is Network Rail's whole attitude to engagement with its Infrastructure Contractors, which on the whole is aggressive and confrontational.

Many of us in senior positions are still from the BR mould so we know the Industry and our business inside out.

NR have a silent and part secret Policy of removing all BR people from their ranks, and if you look at the way things have gone in recent years you will see there is clear evidence of this.

NR has its own pet Consultants who it engages to do work on planning and design.

We as Infrastructure Contractors get involved when the RUS has been produced and the tender documents are sent. We do not get involved earlier. NR use Consultants who have absolutely no infrastructure experience upon which to validate their "theories".

NRs approach to us is both bombastic and patronising. WE are viewed akin to something unpleasant that has been trodden in by Middle ranking Contracts and Projects Managers. Their approach is that we are either incompetent or on the fiddle, and this from people who only months previously were in a variety of Industries with absolutely no comparison with Railways !

So we start from this position, which we find grossly offensive.

Invariably the Tender documentation is built around their pet designers ideas, which when viewed with experience are found to be less than ideal. We have however to tender against a document which is usually wrong, is inadequate for what they really want, and is full of technical errors. The problem is that when we tell them this they use this to accuse us of "going to type" as one rather inelegant and arrogant Manager recently put it. The thing is that they don't actually understand enough about it to understand that what we are telling them is correct.

We do have high Corporate ethical standards, indeed both our ethical standards as well as our employee's working conditions are very much way and beyond NRs but this is to stray from the point.

The bottom line is that we get asked to build something which is not always technically feasible, which has in all probability been staged completely wrong, and which has less than realistic timescales and expectations.

Looking at some recent jobs, we have had to throw out and completely do a redesign for a job which one of the pet designers did so poorly it was actually dangerous. Naturally in the final analysis NR are disputing this although we have clear documentary evidence this is the case, indeed I am doing battle on this tomorrow.

Another job was so out of reality that we needed another year to do it as against what a designer with absolutely no construction experience had decided.

Plans are fine and dandy but at the end of the day it does not matter how many plans you have and how snazzy they look. If they are not feasible then then ain't going to work.

Unforunately NR have very, very few people who now know the Industry and its technicalities and therefore cannot judge. Even their so called "Engineers" have no background experience to call upon and when push comes to shove at some point in the future, HMRI will have no option to to deem them not competent because they do not have the long term underpinning background knowledge as required by Law to deem them legally Competent.

We have NR "Track Engineers" who have no track experience for example.

Tenders are thus processed in an atmopshere of the client loathing the Contractor.

I contrast that with some work done in Europe earlier this year, where the Railway administration were very anxious to engage us in all of their planning, and treated us with both respect and courtesy. Together we delivered a somewhat large and complex long weekend job to the satisfaction of everyone. Issues where inevitable changes were necessary were instructed verbally and the relevant commercial liabilities raised without question.

It was very refreshing to be treated properly, and indeed we have taken the view that we will not be charging the client for a number of things simply because they have shown us goodwill at all times.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Very interesting reply, thank you.
I wonder if P.Eye's Dr B.Ching ever receives any of the more extreme details.

 

[4SRKT]

Very interesting reply, thank you.
I wonder if P.Eye's Dr B.Ching ever receives any of the more extreme details.

Interesting indeed, but profoundly depressing

 

[boing_uk]

You get this in all walks of privatised industry though. I myself am ex-local authority and now work for a partnership consultant with a local authority. Unfortunately many of the senior managers have no concept of maintenance, especially in my field - Traffic Signals - which is both more fluid and less rigid than, say, Civil Engineering.

Trying to explain why we pay for some things to be replaced, yet not other things (for example, above ground detectors are covered in maintenance contracts, yet cables and inductive loop detectors are not) is sometimes quite difficult, as they tend to think that if you are paying a maintenance contractor, then EVERYTHING is included.

The understanding is even less forthcoming when I point out that if everything WAS included, the risk on the contractor is substantial, thus so will be the contract payments. As the client, I have the option of deferring maintenance till next financial year, or collecting all the work in to a programmed block - if the work was in the contract, it would not be. But this kind of thinking doesnt seem to figure in their decision-making.

I personally have a very good relationship with my maintenance contractor and my installation contractors, as I am flexible compared to their other clients; for instance most local authorities have two categories of fault: Urgent and Non-Urgent and have response times for both, usually two hours and 24 hours respectively, and have non-compliance penalities for both. Some of my larger neighbours are very strict on these response times, and also classify some faults as Urgent, when in fact they really dont warrant such classification.

Another problem is that they tend to dispatch faults in batches, rather than spreading the faults as they are reported, which again puts a heavy workload on the contractor with the teat of the non-compliance penalties looming.

Personally, I prefer the non-confrontational approach, holding off non-urgent faults if needs be; this has meant that I get good treatment from the Engineers and also I get favours that are not extended to the confrontational authorities, such as "can you just attend to this please on your way home" or truly urgent faults pushed to the head of the queue, or difficult jobs worked on until completion in appaulling conditions.

Unfortunately my management, who are not traffic signal engineers, dont understand this - they see it as "we are the customer, so we should get the service we pay for". What they dont see is that yes, sometimes it seems you are not getting the service you pay for, but you get it all back in kind.

I could go on about the dedicated "Project Managers" who know absolutely nothing about traffic technologies, but see fit to go on jollies to look at other systems, but not include the technical staff who will actually operate and maintain the systems.

Or some of the other staff who's roles I have yet to fully understand, but seem to get involved in the most menial of problems and blow things up out of all proportion because they see it as something serious.

I liken the British Rail lower eschellons to the larger local authorities of old, where things were done properly, by the correct staff to the correct standards.

I liken Network Rail at the lower eschellons to many of the local authorities of today, where unqualified and incompetent management start meddling in fields of expertise they could have no possible knowledge of, telling those that DO know how it should be done, how to do the work and for what cost and in what manner.

 

[johnb]

It's worth bearing in mind that OT is himself at an extreme end of the "bitter contractor who blames the client for everything" end of the spectrum. His posts are interesting, but I wouldn't rely on them for a picture even of the main things that are wrong with UK railways, never mind whether things are particularly badly wrong with UK railways.

(for example, the whole point of RUSes is that they're top-level strategy documents that aren't dependent on detailed engineering solutions, but on basic understanding of demands, costs and assets. So NR and its consultants decide whether to wire Bedford-Leicester based on cost/benefit analysis - then the electrical and structural engineers can be hired to design the actual wiring system. What possible use is there in bringing the engineers in at C/BA stage, when it's not something they're skilled at or can contribute to?)

...and given the amount of made-up anti-railway nonsense Dr B Ching does print, it would surprise me if there were much more sitting in his inbox that he doesn't dare run because it would be too controversial. I'm entirely sure there's plenty he doesn't run because it's insufficiently tabloid-sensational and negative.

 

[ukrob]

It's worth bearing in mind that OT is himself at an extreme end of the "bitter contractor who blames the client for everything" end of the spectrum. His posts are interesting, but I wouldn't rely on them for a picture even of the main things that are wrong with UK railways, never mind whether things are particularly badly wrong with UK railways.

I agree - I really do enjoy OT's posts, but if national or company politics it is best to take it with a pinch of salt - but even those bits and enjoyable to read as a lot of thought goes into them.

 

[Old Timer]

I agree - I really do enjoy OT's posts, but if national or company politics it is best to take it with a pinch of salt - but even those bits and enjoyable to read as a lot of thought goes into them.

What I wrote is true, and frankly it is quite funny if not somewhat arrogant on the part of someone who is not within the Industry to attempt to suggest that what I wrote is somehow written from the "bitter" end of the scale. This is not directed towards you by the way ukrob.

Like many in the Infrastucture Contracting field, I have little time for an organisation that is quick to pass the blame onto its Contractors yet is so manifestly and demonstrably unable to run its own business.

As a taxpayer whose money is being used by NR I have a perfect right to comment on how my money is mismanaged.

You should recall that immediately after Grayrigg NR was peddling the story that it must have been one of those "nasty Contractors", completely unmindful of the fact that even if it were THEY were still liable in Law.

As it turned out, it was once again down to Network Rail's own internal failures to manage. These are failures which were not present within the former Maintenance regime, yet they continue to appear with depressing regularity in incident report after incident report as issued by the RAIB.

Listening to the NR publicity machine you would believe that all is well and good in the land of NR. I am sure the many NR Maintenance staff who come here will be happy to comment, provided of course they have not been culled in the latest round of Maintenance redundancies.

You can judge for yourself if Maintenance is any better by comparing photographs from say 2000 and now, and counting the weeds.

You could also consider the ride quality of your train.

Finally for an organisation that took Maintenance "in-House" to save money and do it "properly" they have had an awful lot of RAIB reports aimed at them, and they tend to use an awful lot of Labour Agency staff.

From outside all may look well and many will be taken in by the nice glossy brochures and pictures and NR disinformation that tends to fly around.

Once you are on the inside things do look much different.

 

[ukrob]

OT - I don't think anybody said you didn't have a right to comment on how money is mismanaged

What I said stands - I thoroughly enjoy all your posts, and to add a bit of balance, it is best to take anybodies opinions about political matters, when stated as fact, with a pinch of salt - I hope you understand that is not a 'dig' at you

 

[Old Timer]

What I said stands - I thoroughly enjoy all your posts, and to add a bit of balance, it is best to take anybodies opinions about political matters, when stated as fact, with a pinch of salt - I hope you understand that is not a 'dig' at you

I had never taken it as a dig Old Chap so I have not taken offence at you. , not at all.

Just for the record I do check my facts before writing, and what I write can be verified. Sometimes I put links but not always as I expect people to respect my integrity.

Another poster did, to my mind at least, suggest that what I wrote was not entirely accurate. It was and always is.

As I said I am within the Industry and I see day to day what goes on, the waste of money, the removal of experienced people whose only "crime" is to have BR experience, and their replacement by pliable bodies who lack both the experience and the interest in keeping the Railway system going.

Blame and kick the Contractor is the name of the game these days, and many, many good people have now left the Industry either to work in other fields, into retirement or to other Countries, who pay a very large premuim to ex BR people. The annual renewals budget for some of these Companies exceeds what NR is worth, and they see BR experience as being highly desirable.

That in itself tells a story.

 

[tbtc]

You need four trains an hour to justify electrifying a stretch of track?

There are four trains from Manchester (Pic/ Vic) to Preston via Bolton.

However, as things stand, only three trains every two hours could be converted to EMU if you wired the line up (Hazel Grove to Preston hourly, plus bi-hourly Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh). You'd need to wire to Blackpool too to make a significant difference (which would also allow the Liverpool - Blackpool service to be EMU). However, unless you plan to wire the lines to Barrow (and Windermere/ Morcambe etc) then things won't be all electric.

What I don't want is a situation like the ECML north of York where there are six or seven trains each hour as far as Northallerton/ Thirsk, but only one or two are electric - all the others are still diesel run. As I've said before, we'd be better filling in little gaps (like the LM services between Coventry - Nuneaton, or the Walsall lines, or the current FGW services to Gatwick/ Basingstoke) than doing long stretches that don't actually mean a significant number of DMUs are "saved".

 

[scrapy]

Blackpool North - Preston announced today along with official Manchester - Euxton and Huyton - Wigan announcement.

From DFT website

The Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Adonis): In July, I announced a £1.1bn investment in the electrification of the Great Western Main Line between London and South Wales, and the line between Liverpool and Manchester.

In the Pre-Budget Report the Chancellor indicated that the Government is now going ahead with plans for electrification of further lines in the North West. I can today set out the lines and expected timescales involved.

The first line is between Huyton – on the line running from Liverpool to Manchester – and Wigan, on the already electrified West Coast Main Line. This will allow electric trains to operate between Liverpool and Wigan via St Helens. The second line is between Manchester and Euxton Junction – just south of Preston on the West Coast Main Line. This will allow electric trains to operate between Manchester and Preston, via Bolton. The third line is between Blackpool North and Preston. This will allow electric trains to operate between Blackpool North and both Liverpool and Manchester.

Our plans envisage that, once electrified, these three lines will be served by thoroughly refurbished electric commuter trains transferred from the Thameslink line. This will increase rail capacity and reliability between key cities and towns in the North West. It will allow 30 year old ‘Pacer’ diesel trains to be retired, and modern diesel trains to be transferred to other routes requiring extra capacity. It will also help to reduce the long-term cost of operating the railway, and reduce carbon emissions.

Network Rail will now develop detailed plans to complete these electrification projects alongside the previously-announced plans for Liverpool to Manchester, opening in sequence between 2014 and 2016. Funding of up to £1.1bn had already been allocated for electrification between Liverpool and Manchester and on the Great Western Main Line. Subject to detailed work on value for money on each new line, a further £200m will be provided from within Network Rail’s capital programme, giving a total investment available for electrification of up to £1.3bn.

In July I undertook to review the Department’s rolling stock plan in the light of the electrification announcements and other developments. The Government remains committed to providing an additional 1300 carriages by mid-2014. Until commercial negotiations on the Thameslink programme are completed, I am not in a position to update the rolling stock plan, which is critically dependent on the determination of the Thameslink rolling stock contract. However, I can give the following detail of recent and projected rolling stock procurements:

•Southeastern introduced 48 cascaded carriages in March 2009 as the first phase of additional capacity to address the crowding of train services through London Bridge to London Charing Cross and London Cannon Street. The specification for the second phase is now being developed as part of the Thameslink Key Output 1 (December 2011) and Key Output 2 (December 2015) service patterns which are being discussed with train operators.
•The East Anglia franchise operator will take delivery of 120 new carriages for Stansted Express services, as part of the Department’s agreement with the current train operating company. This will enable the carriages currently forming these trains to be redeployed to lengthen other services into London Liverpool Street. National Express East Anglia is also deploying a further 68 cascaded carriages to lengthen existing trains. In total 188 new and cascaded carriages will be deployed to increase capacity into London Liverpool Street
•The first two phases of additional capacity on London Midland services have been agreed. These involve the deployment of 28 cascaded carriages to lengthen trains and also to operate more trains between Watford and London Euston during peak periods. The third phase of the additional capacity for London Midland services is now being developed with the train operator. This will focus on additional capacity into Birmingham.
•Extra capacity provision is included in the recently-announced Southern franchise. This includes additional capacity into London Bridge and London Victoria over the next three years using 128 cascaded carriages.
•Arrangements are almost finalised with First Capital Connect for the introduction of 41 carriages onto the services into London. The extra carriages will be introduced over the next 12 months.
•Negotiations are underway with First Great Western to provide additional capacity on services around Bristol. This is expected to involve additional cascaded carriages, introduced over the next 12 to 18 months.
•Proposals for the provision of additional capacity into London Waterloo are being negotiated with South West Trains.
•The provision of additional capacity on the Shrewsbury – Birmingham route is being developed with Arriva Trains Wales.
•Plans for additional capacity on the Liverpool – Nottingham route are being developed with East Midlands Trains.
•The specification for a first phase of additional capacity on services into Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield has been completed and is now being discussed with Northern Rail and the relevant Passenger Transport Executives. Planning work is also underway with Northern Rail and the Passenger Transport Executives to develop a second phase scheme to address the further capacity requirements for these cities.
•The specification for the new Essex Thameside (C2C) franchise in May 2011 will include extra capacity requirements. The proposed specification will be published in early 2010.
•The specification for the new Intercity West Coast franchise, due to start in April 2012, will include a requirement to deploy the 106 new Pendolino vehicles on order to increase capacity between London, Birmingham and Manchester.
•The current Transpennine Express franchise is due to end in February 2012, and the specification for its replacement will be developed over the next 24 months. This will include the deployment of new electric trains on the Manchester to Central Scotland route, allowing the diesel trains currently operating these services to be used to provide more capacity on the main trans-Pennine route.
•Chiltern Railway’s Franchise Agreement contains provision under Evergreen Phases 2 and 3 for extra capacity requirements to be delivered by 2014. Chiltern Railways has procured additional carriages to achieve this and further plans are now being discussed.

 

[PhilipW]

The DfT have just announced details of the proposed schemes

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=409548&SubjectId=36

I thought it better to open a new thread to talk about it.

The plan is even better than we all assumed last week with there now being three schemes to follow on from the Liverpool -Chat Moss - Manchester electrification.

1) Huyton - Wigan
2) Manchester - Euxton Junction
3) Preston - Blackpool North

Brilliant. The schemes have my full support. Well done, Lord Adonis.

 

[4SRKT]

With Blackpool North in the mix, this now makes more sense.

 

[Failed Unit]

The DfT have just announced details of the proposed schemes

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=409548&SubjectId=36

I thought it better to open a new thread to talk about it.

The plan is even better than we all assumed last week with there now being three schemes to follow on from the Liverpool -Chat Moss - Manchester electrification.

1) Huyton - Wigan
2) Manchester - Euxton Junction
3) Preston - Blackpool North

Brilliant. The schemes have my full support. Well done, Lord Adonis.

This is good news, gets rid of a few pacers and hopefully will see a return of Blackpool - Euston services using a Voyager of course. At least having Blackpool North electrified will mean the majority of the services on these lines can be electrically operated, just the Barrow / Windermere services will remain in DMU hands (I think)

 

[PhilipW]

This is good news, gets rid of a few pacers and hopefully will see a return of Blackpool - Euston services using a Voyager of course.

Not necessarily with Voyagers. I agree that there will now a great push by Blackpool to restore its direct services to Euston. At the moment some Pendolino services terminate at Preston and some at Lancaster. I can see pressure to extend/divert these to Blackpool North. Very sensible in my opinion.

 

[4SRKT]

This is good news, gets rid of a few pacers and hopefully will see a return of Blackpool - Euston services using a Voyager of course. At least having Blackpool North electrified will mean the majority of the services on these lines can be electrically operated, just the Barrow / Windermere services will remain in DMU hands (I think)

A bit of smart thinking could reduce under the wires running here. Run the Barrow/Windermere services through from York via Copy Pit, with a good, cross-platform connection to Manchester at Preston. Blackpool then gets an additional electric service to Manchester or beyond, likewise with a good cross-platform connection into the York train.

You might have to mess about with which TOC runs what, but that shouldn't be a barrier to improvement IMHO.

 

[PhilipW]

This is how the BBC are reporting it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8411923.stm

 

[boing_uk]

I wonder if Blackpool LMD will get wires?

Of course, it would be useful if Kirkham was re-modelled as part of this scheme to remove the 40mph speed restriction for non-stoppers.

Just a shame that Blackpool North isnt being remodelled as part of the Talbot Gateway scheme... ideal opportunity there to straighten out/lengthen (some of) the platforms and improve the approaches to the station.

 

[tbtc]

Good stuff. I like the "rolling" nature of this, with logical "gaps" being filled in.

Now Manchester - Bolton is being done,there's more scope to do the Wigan lines (and allow direct Manchester - Liverpool services), but that's for another day...

 

[PhilipW]

Question : Are the platforms at Blackpool North long enough to take 9-car (or even extended 11-car) Pendolinos ? I presume some are.

I also presume that any Pendolino will be obliged to run non-stop from Preston as no other station en-route will have long enough platforms.

I also understand (though someone may wish to correct me) that Network Rail has allowed the Preston-Blackpool signalling to deteriorate to such an extent that only Queen Victoria would feel proud of it. I guess there will be much work there to bring it up to electrified standards.

I think it quite clever of Adonis not to state that direct services will be restored to Euston. The pressure will come from the people of Blackpool and will be far more effective for that very reason. Once the pressure starts, it will be endorsed by all politicians and will become unstoppable. Clever.

 

[Aictos]

Question : Are the platforms at Blackpool North long enough to take 9-car (or even extended 11-car) Pendolinos ? I presume some are.

Well according to my Quail map for the local area, it seems that the 390s can use all 8 platforms if the OHL was already there.

Suppose drags are out of the question from Preston to Blackpool North until the OHL gets completed by extending the Preston terminators to though trains to Blackpool North?

Platforms 1, 6 and 7 can take a 10 car
Platforms 2 to 5 can take a 11 car.
Platform 8 can only take a 9 car.

 

[philjo]

A written statement from Lord Adonis to Parliament give a few more details. also a rolling stock update.

it mentions transfer of reburbished electric units form thameslink line. Maybe this will also include the 317/365 GN units once they are displaced by the Thameslink EMU order unless that is scaled back) ??

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/railwaymodernisation

Statement by:
Rt Hon Lord Andrew Adonis, Secretary of State for Transport

Date delivered:
14 December 2009

Statement type:
Written

The Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Adonis): In July, I announced a £1.1bn investment in the electrification of the Great Western Main Line between London and South Wales, and the line between Liverpool and Manchester.

In the Pre-Budget Report the Chancellor indicated that the Government is now going ahead with plans for electrification of further lines in the North West. I can today set out the lines and expected timescales involved.

The first line is between Huyton – on the line running from Liverpool to Manchester – and Wigan, on the already electrified West Coast Main Line. This will allow electric trains to operate between Liverpool and Wigan via St Helens. The second line is between Manchester and Euxton Junction – just south of Preston on the West Coast Main Line. This will allow electric trains to operate between Manchester and Preston, via Bolton. The third line is between Blackpool North and Preston. This will allow electric trains to operate between Blackpool North and both Liverpool and Manchester.

Our plans envisage that, once electrified, these three lines will be served by thoroughly refurbished electric commuter trains transferred from the Thameslink line. This will increase rail capacity and reliability between key cities and towns in the North West. It will allow 30 year old ‘Pacer’ diesel trains to be retired, and modern diesel trains to be transferred to other routes requiring extra capacity. It will also help to reduce the long-term cost of operating the railway, and reduce carbon emissions.

Network Rail will now develop detailed plans to complete these electrification projects alongside the previously-announced plans for Liverpool to Manchester, opening in sequence between 2014 and 2016. Funding of up to £1.1bn had already been allocated for electrification between Liverpool and Manchester and on the Great Western Main Line. Subject to detailed work on value for money on each new line, a further £200m will be provided from within Network Rail’s capital programme, giving a total investment available for electrification of up to £1.3bn.

In July I undertook to review the Department’s rolling stock plan in the light of the electrification announcements and other developments. The Government remains committed to providing an additional 1300 carriages by mid-2014. Until commercial negotiations on the Thameslink programme are completed, I am not in a position to update the rolling stock plan, which is critically dependent on the determination of the Thameslink rolling stock contract. However, I can give the following detail of recent and projected rolling stock procurements:

* Southeastern introduced 48 cascaded carriages in March 2009 as the first phase of additional capacity to address the crowding of train services through London Bridge to London Charing Cross and London Cannon Street. The specification for the second phase is now being developed as part of the Thameslink Key Output 1 (December 2011) and Key Output 2 (December 2015) service patterns which are being discussed with train operators.
* The East Anglia franchise operator will take delivery of 120 new carriages for Stansted Express services, as part of the Department’s agreement with the current train operating company. This will enable the carriages currently forming these trains to be redeployed to lengthen other services into London Liverpool Street. National Express East Anglia is also deploying a further 68 cascaded carriages to lengthen existing trains. In total 188 new and cascaded carriages will be deployed to increase capacity into London Liverpool Street
* The first two phases of additional capacity on London Midland services have been agreed. These involve the deployment of 28 cascaded carriages to lengthen trains and also to operate more trains between Watford and London Euston during peak periods. The third phase of the additional capacity for London Midland services is now being developed with the train operator. This will focus on additional capacity into Birmingham.
* Extra capacity provision is included in the recently-announced Southern franchise. This includes additional capacity into London Bridge and London Victoria over the next three years using 128 cascaded carriages.
* Arrangements are almost finalised with First Capital Connect for the introduction of 41 carriages onto the services into London. The extra carriages will be introduced over the next 12 months.
* Negotiations are underway with First Great Western to provide additional capacity on services around Bristol. This is expected to involve additional cascaded carriages, introduced over the next 12 to 18 months.
* Proposals for the provision of additional capacity into London Waterloo are being negotiated with South West Trains.
* The provision of additional capacity on the Shrewsbury – Birmingham route is being developed with Arriva Trains Wales.
* Plans for additional capacity on the Liverpool – Nottingham route are being developed with East Midlands Trains.
* The specification for a first phase of additional capacity on services into Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield has been completed and is now being discussed with Northern Rail and the relevant Passenger Transport Executives. Planning work is also underway with Northern Rail and the Passenger Transport Executives to develop a second phase scheme to address the further capacity requirements for these cities.
* The specification for the new Essex Thameside (C2C) franchise in May 2011 will include extra capacity requirements. The proposed specification will be published in early 2010.
* The specification for the new Intercity West Coast franchise, due to start in April 2012, will include a requirement to deploy the 106 new Pendolino vehicles on order to increase capacity between London, Birmingham and Manchester.
* The current Transpennine Express franchise is due to end in February 2012, and the specification for its replacement will be developed over the next 24 months. This will include the deployment of new electric trains on the Manchester to Central Scotland route, allowing the diesel trains currently operating these services to be used to provide more capacity on the main trans-Pennine route.
* Chiltern Railway’s Franchise Agreement contains provision under Evergreen Phases 2 and 3 for extra capacity requirements to be delivered by 2014. Chiltern Railways has procured additional carriages to achieve this and further plans are now being discussed.

 

[johnb]

@OT, I'm not meaning to suggest that what you write is in any way false (or anything other than interesting and valuable) - just that it's the picture as you see it, based on your unique experience and starting from a very polarised position. The "not rely on" is based on what you don't cover, and I meant "not solely rely on" rather than "ignore".

 

[Old Timer]

Johnb
Any polarisation has arisen from the attitudes that NR now display towards their Contractors, in fact many of us would prefer to be back in the days of Railtrack where we had clear Contractual relationships, with penalties for non-performance locked into both parties.

NR do not wish to work in a spirit of co-operation but rather one where there is always only one winner, that being NR. They contract additional work and then refuse to pay for it, and issue tender documents which are wholly wrong and then dispute the work that has to be done to do the work properly.

If you look at the reduction in the Track Renewals Contractors which took place in 2006/7, promises were made that the prices agreed on re-award of the Contracts, (itself a breach of Contract) would be honoured to completion, but weeks after the new Contracts were awarded, NR came back looking to retender the Contracts from 2010. They also demanded further cuts in costs. The impact of these would be to have reduced the cost of renewals to 65% of the price agreed several years ago. In an economy where prices are increasing and profit margins are not much more than 5%, it is a wholly unachievable target.

NR are now punishing the Infrastructure Contractors by using less qualified agency labour and witholding future Projects. Some it is planning to do itself with wholly agency labour, even maintenance which it took "in-house" to claims that its OWN staff would be engaged on this work. Instead it has gone through a series of reorganisations and restructurings that have reduced directly employed staff in favour of agency labour (paid the minimum, with the very basic PPE) and have removed experienced railway engineers to be replaced with people from outside the Industry.

Does that put my posts in context ?

 

[boing_uk]

Question : Are the platforms at Blackpool North long enough to take 9-car (or even extended 11-car) Pendolinos ? I presume some are.

I also understand (though someone may wish to correct me) that Network Rail has allowed the Preston-Blackpool signalling to deteriorate to such an extent that only Queen Victoria would feel proud of it. I guess there will be much work there to bring it up to electrified standards.

There would probably have to be some significant platform modifications to take a 390? There are restrictions in place, AIUI from the base declaration, as to what vehicles can use which platforms.

I dont know what you mean about the signalling though? Apart from the section between Poulton and Blackpool North, its all 3 asp colour light on, I presume, AB working? Why the whole line isnt controlled from Preston though, I have no idea.

What the line could do with, is the line speed increasing to 75mph or 90mph throughout, if possible, with platform extensions at Kirkham and Poulton. Perhaps it would be nice to get a passing loop installed on the Lytham line while theyre at it! 1 pacer per hour is just not enough on that line, esp in summer.

Well according to my Quail map for the local area, it seems that the 390s can use all 8 platforms if the OHL was already there.

Suppose drags are out of the question from Preston to Blackpool North until the OHL gets completed by extending the Preston terminators to though trains to Blackpool North?

Platform 7 and 8 are not permitted to have Mk3 or Mk4 coaching stock - although oddly, a Class 180 IS permitted in either platform. Remodelling would be needed for anything longer than 8 car trains. In fact, it needs remodelling anyway... platform usage is not optimal either.

 

[PhilipW]

The link to the story in Railnews

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2009/12/15-more-electrification-but-dft-backtracks.html

 

[scrapy]

Any idea how feasable it is to run OHLE through Farnworth tunnels?

Given that the 319's are dual voltage could 3rd rail be an option between Manchester and Bolton?

 

[rl4eng]

What the line could do with, is the line speed increasing to 75mph or 90mph throughout, if possible, with platform extensions at Kirkham and Poulton. Perhaps it would be nice to get a passing loop installed on the Lytham line while theyre at it! 1 pacer per hour is just not enough on that line, esp in summer.

New user here, thought I'd get involved as I can see a new "Golden Age" of Rail for the Fylde on the horizon now, what with Electrification, and Re-opening of the line to Fleetwood etc.

What's all this talk of "Platform Extensions to Poulton"? Long trains existed before DMU's you know! With around 14 or 15 carriages (and a Locomotive! Shock horror! ). The platform at Poulton is about 400m long I reckon, making it one of the longest in the country (Top 20?). OK it would need tidying up at the 'Southern Reaches' but it's plenty long enough for Pendolinos.

We used to hide under the Station Road bridge near the bottom end as trains went under as a kid and get the driver to sound the horn. Happy days!

 

[PhilipW]

Any idea how feasable it is to run OHLE through Farnworth tunnels?

If there is not enough room at the moment, I guess they will lower the track. That seems to be the standard practice for getting clearence.