Great Western Electrification Progress

[Grumpy]

They have 'committed' others (eg the leasing companies) to buy many new trains!!
Brian

Indeed but only because Rutnam's people have agreed to pay the leasing charges. I bet the leasing companies weren't naïve enough to commit their money to buying the trains until they had a firm price for the trains and the DfT were signed up for the lease payments. Whatever happens the leasing companies are laughing.

 

[HowardGWR]

That's what the last mile diesel is for ... either that or a very big rubber band.

I suppose it depends whether the terminating unimodes will ever use the through platforms. If so it would be useful to be able to draw forward and then perhaps stable and then run back in.

 

[59CosG95]

I suppose it depends whether the terminating unimodes will ever use the through platforms. If so it would be useful to be able to draw forward and then perhaps stable and then run back in.

This could potentially be a boon for electric XC services in the future.

 

[Hophead]

Seems to me that Network Rail, as a company, suffers from not being in complete charge of its own investment decisions. ORR, DfT & ministers all seem to be able to decide what they should do; then the company has to somehow make it all happen, even when costs are simply not known.

 

[deltic08]

That's what the last mile diesel is for ... either that or a very big rubber band.

Well done. I didn't know if anybody would get it. I am not usually on other peoples wavelength.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suppose it depends whether the terminating unimodes will ever use the through platforms. If so it would be useful to be able to draw forward and then perhaps stable and then run back in.

I have not been to Temple Meads since 1966 but from memory the original Brunel terminus is not long enough for nine coach IEPs. When the Gloucester-Bristol locals were steam hauled running via Fish Ponds, a 4F and four coaches terminated here and seemed to fill most of the platform. Can someone verify?

 

[Olaf]

I'd imagine it has more to do with lack of experience than under-performance as well as issues that simply weren't foreseeable, so sacking them is the last thing they should do - it would also risk estimates becoming ultra-conservative, which benefits no-one.

Suggesting inexperience is the cause for the extent of the delays is does not fly in a major organisation that has been around for more than a few years. I can understand that unforeseen circumstances might arise, but it is the job of the delivery teams to keep the work on target. If any of them are not up to the job they must be replaced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who would replace them?

There are plenty of skill planners and infrastructure PMs about. If necessary it would be possible to bring in outside professional firms to take over the big-ticket projects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely someone should be offering Rutnam the glass of whisky and a revolver?

The DfT have committed to paying billions for new electric trains before they had a firm cost for electrifying the tracks.

How much are the DfT prepared to pay for a project before the penny drops that it's not worth it? Projects are authorised when the value of the benefits exceeds the costs. If it looks like the costs are shooting up, or benefits evaporating, you review the project to see if it's still worth doing. You don't just carry on spending to save Politicians' and Civil Servant's faces. See Concorde.They shouldn't have committed to spending billions till they had firm contract prices for the trains and electrification. Hitachi now have them by the balls and the electrification contractors similarly.

Correct, but it is also the responsibility of the planners to be able to produce reasonable estimates and for the project delivery teams to keep costs under control.

 

[w1bbl3]

It is looking like a complete shambles in the NR planning and projects teams; people need to be fired to clear out the under-performers.

You've not managed a large value project before I take it? changing management during delivery would only make the project later and ever more over budget. Been there, done that!

As a few other posters have mentioned this appears to be more a lack of experience problem than a incompetence one. NR haven't as far as I can recall managed a project on this scale before end to end, WCML modernisation is something they inherited and used consultants for project management extensively. ECML electrification was so long ago that the generation of management responsible for early planning will have long since gone.

How much are the DfT prepared to pay for a project before the penny drops that it's not worth it? Projects are authorised when the value of the benefits exceeds the costs. If it looks like the costs are shooting up, or benefits evaporating, you review the project to see if it's still worth doing. You don't just carry on spending to save Politicians' and Civil Servant's faces. See Concorde.They shouldn't have committed to spending billions till they had firm contract prices for the trains and electrification. Hitachi now have them by the balls and the electrification contractors similarly.

DfT are likely beyond the point that de-scoping the project would generate any meaningful saving, there comes a point in a project where management and funders need to man up and face a reaming or just write everything off and abandon. Reviews cost money and consume time these can be a contributory factor in further delays and cost overruns.

Do you go for a parallel review where the project continues unaffected until completion of the review running the risk of abortive costs for cancelled elements and re-scoping costs or do you suspend the project whilst the review is ongoing incurring demobilisation and re-mobilisation costs together with supplier renegotiations.?

As an adage if you sign a contract with supplier A for say 10,000 widgets at £1,000 per widget. These widgets designed by the supplier especially for you costing said supplier say £1m in development costs factored into the contract value. You now tell the supplier only 1,000 widgets are needed due to de-scoping, the supplier then enforces contract clauses around repricing/development and your widget now costs at least £2,000 ea. You've saved "only" a fifth of costs by reducing the scope by a tenth which is pretty bad value.

This kind of logic is how many publicly funded projects end up with measured unit costs considerably above the original target yet a "lower" or "capped" total spend. The private sector in my experience would just kill the thing write off the losses and move on, as if the full project business case doesn't support higher costs and scoped reduced version is unlikely to.

 

[CdBrux]

This kind of logic is how many publicly funded projects end up with measured unit costs considerably above the original target yet a "lower" or "capped" total spend. The private sector in my experience would just kill the thing write off the losses and move on, as if the full project business case doesn't support higher costs and scoped reduced version is unlikely to.

This is quite correct. Having been involved in private sector decision making then I have seen more than once a project canned after several millions were spent on it. How much has already been spent is totally irrelevant, the only thing that matters is how much is now forecast that remains to be spent vs the revised benefits. If that calculation no longer makes sense you stop.

Of course both in the public and private sector politics (i.e. face saving, arse protection,...) can distort the decision making process.

Here I think some leeway shoudl be cut as the organisation probably has little electrification knowledge (though questions should be asked if they might reasonable have sourced that knowledge from elsewhere) and I would want the people involved explaining very clearly what went wrong and what they would do differently next time.

 

[contrex]

I have not been to Temple Meads since 1966 but from memory the original Brunel terminus is not long enough for nine coach IEPs. When the Gloucester-Bristol locals were steam hauled running via Fish Ponds, a 4F and four coaches terminated here and seemed to fill most of the platform. Can someone verify?

...Fishponds! (forgive a pedantic Bristolian!). As I understand it the plan to reopen the 'Midland' shed for terminating London services involves not just the part currently used as a car park (the 1870s Digby-Wyatt extension to Brunel's terminus), but to accommodate 10-car IEPs will require the use of Brunel's 'Passenger Shed' as well. Nearly half of the 1870s extension was demolished when the signal box was built in the 1960s, and now the box has been demolished they will be able to extend the platforms and build a new overall roof.

 

[HowardGWR]

...Fishponds! (forgive a pedantic Bristolian!). As I understand it the plan to reopen the 'Midland' shed for terminating London services involves not just the part currently used as a car park (the 1870s Digby-Wyatt extension to Brunel's terminus), but to accommodate 10-car IEPs will require the use of Brunel's 'Passenger Shed' as well. Nearly half of the 1870s extension was demolished when the signal box was built in the 1960s, and now the box has been demolished they will be able to extend the platforms and build a new overall roof.

The south east platform 12 (of the two in the train shed) used to accommodate a Jubilee and 12 for York and such destinations without the engine protruding beyond the roof - oh and I've forgotten the 4F banker at the rear too. So the north western platform (was platforms 14 and 15 before somebody decided to switch it all around) must be the same. I don't think such trains went back as far as the Brunel shed but I am not sure about that. Never went down there in the 50s and nor did anyone else, a gloomy hole.

 

[Olaf]

You've not managed a large value project before I take it? changing management during delivery would only make the project later and ever more over budget. Been there, done that!

On the contrary, I do it on a regular basis, and I do not tolerate failure.

 

[HSTEd]

Problem is with that is you inevitably get problems when your replacements are dropping in at the deep end and start making mistakes that have been, very expensively, learned by the previous staff.

So your logic has them replaced as well, so you can very easily end up simply making the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[Olaf]

As a few other posters have mentioned this appears to be more a lack of experience problem than a incompetence one. NR haven't as far as I can recall managed a project on this scale before end to end, WCML modernisation is something they inherited and used consultants for project management extensively. ECML electrification was so long ago that the generation of management responsible for early planning will have long since gone.

That is no justification at all; NR is not a kindergarten. The failure is with the leadership to communicate objectives and in a lack of assertiveness on achievement of targets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Problem is with that is you inevitably get problems when your replacements are dropping in at the deep end and start making mistakes that have been, very expensively, learned by the previous staff.

So your logic has them replaced as well, so you can very easily end up simply making the same mistakes over and over again.

No, you put resources in place that achieve delivery to schedule.

 

[Nym]

Jeez.
Is this project mamagers' BS morning or something?
So many of them seem to forget there is a finite resource of skilled engineers and labour, and that kind of attitude will end your project up in the gutter.

This whole failure will not be tolerated really gets my back up when it's applied as totalitarianally as it seems to be above...

 

[CdBrux]

No, you put resources in place that achieve delivery to schedule.

So a massive budget overrun in order to deliver on time is acceptable?

 

[67018]

On the contrary, I do it on a regular basis, and I do not tolerate failure.

This statement is not compatible with your other posts. As everyone who has done any sort of significant project work well knows, firing everyone when something goes wrong is a sure guarantee of institutionalised risk-aversion, cost and time overrun and large scale waste.

I'd like to see what sort of risk management was done on this project. There seem to have been some inherent risks - with availability of suitable skills, undocumented existing infrastructure and use of untried technology - which should have been known in advance. Of course, knowing about the risks doesn't always mean you can stop them happening...

 

[quantinghome]

I do not tolerate failure.

Ah yes, the Darth Vader school of project management...

 

[Nym]

This statement is not compatible with your other posts. As everyone who has done any sort of significant project work well knows, firing everyone when something goes wrong is a sure guarantee of institutionalised risk-aversion, cost and time overrun and large scale waste.

I'd like to see what sort of risk management was done on this project. There seem to have been some inherent risks - with availability of suitable skills, undocumented existing infrastructure and use of untried technology - which should have been known in advance. Of course, knowing about the risks doesn't always mean you can stop them happening...

I'm actually wondering what kind of £000,000s worth of project he's been let loose on...

By the way, the Senior Project Manager on my team wouldn't stand for this kind of attitude from anyone on his workforce, especially the attitude that it's the workforce's fault that a project delivery is late, when it is usually the fault of project management or project sponsors setting unrealistic goals, or external suppliers / consultants completely sodding up the work...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This statement is not compatible with your other posts. As everyone who has done any sort of significant project work well knows, firing everyone when something goes wrong is a sure guarantee of institutionalised risk-aversion, cost and time overrun and large scale waste.

The overruns may not be the fault of any of the project team on the ground.
The problem was caused by those managers/engineers in NR in 2009 who agreed the deal with the DfT (reviewed and confirmed by the current government in 2010).
It's akin to the WCRM Railtrack planning decision to use Moving Block signalling, which essentially broke the company.
This time there are no private shareholders to take the hit.

The damage may not be to the current project, but will cast a long shadow over future electrification projects until NR has got control of its costs and resources.
eg we were told early on that "the tunnels are easy"; now it's "there are a number of very difficult tunnels to wire".
But we haven't even got to the tunnels yet...

 

[67018]

The overruns may not be the fault of any of the project team on the ground.
The problem was caused by those managers/engineers in NR in 2009 who agreed the deal with the DfT (reviewed and confirmed by the current government in 2010).
It's akin to the WCRM Railtrack planning decision to use Moving Block signalling, which essentially broke the company.
This time there are no private shareholders to take the hit.

The damage may not be to the current project, but will cast a long shadow over future electrification projects until NR has got control of its costs and resources.
eg we were told early on that "the tunnels are easy"; now it's "there are a number of very difficult tunnels to wire".
But we haven't even got to the tunnels yet...

The age old problem. If you are suitably cautious with project scope, timings and costings, the whole thing comes out as far too big, risky or expensive and there's no payback. Or you've run out of money before the planning's been completed.

Go with something that looks like it's got a better business case and you find yourself having to deliver against (in hindsight) heroically unrealistic assumptions.

Sometimes, you just have to decide to do it and get on with it. Once delivered, a project like this will provide lasting benefit for decades. Consequences of canning it now are scary to contemplate.

Agree that it's going to be harder to prise open the Treasury's coffers in future though.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Sometimes, you just have to decide to do it and get on with it. Once delivered, a project like this will provide lasting benefit for decades. Consequences of canning it now are scary to contemplate.

Agree that it's going to be harder to prise open the Treasury's coffers in future though.

Well said

 

[HowardGWR]

I haven't read anything that says that the dates that the trains are supposed to start running,first to Newbury and Oxford, will not be met, nor the later dates to Bristol and Swansea. Has anyone specific information to the contrary?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I haven't read anything that says that the dates that the trains are supposed to start running,first to Newbury and Oxford, will not be met, nor the later dates to Bristol and Swansea. Has anyone specific information to the contrary?

No, they have fallen back on "as soon as possible", and "we expect NR to make every endeavour to meet the expected dates".
There are specific dates for "first electric train" for each piece of route in the CP5 planning update, but they are qualified by the remark that all electrification plans are under review.
Work at Bristol was recently flagged as proving difficult with the design not finalised

There seems to be a conspiracy between NR, ORR and DfT to avoid giving new dates or even a meaningful project update.
It's also complicated by the fact that there are two projects, east and west of Maidenhead, and we don't really know how either of them is doing.
I can only assume there is much head-banging going on behind the scenes.
All we can do is count the masts on the ground and hope.

 

[deltic08]

...Fishponds! (forgive a pedantic Bristolian!). As I understand it the plan to reopen the 'Midland' shed for terminating London services involves not just the part currently used as a car park (the 1870s Digby-Wyatt extension to Brunel's terminus), but to accommodate 10-car IEPs will require the use of Brunel's 'Passenger Shed' as well. Nearly half of the 1870s extension was demolished when the signal box was built in the 1960s, and now the box has been demolished they will be able to extend the platforms and build a new overall roof.

Apologies. I did say it was 1966 when I was last in Bristol. When I was 11years old, I was allowed to travel from Lydney via Berkeley Road to Bristol TM with a school friend. For the first few times we travelled through Fishponds we just laughed and laughed. Sorry pedantic Bristolian, but that is how the name took us at that age.

Occasionally we caught an earlier train home, bound for Bath Green Park I think, as far as Fishponds, so we could watch the Castle-hauled Cornishman pound up the bank and the 4F banker drop off and return to Barrow Road. The following 4F hauled Bristol-Gloucester stopper was the last train possible for us as the last train across Severn Bridge was 6.14 from Berkeley Road. On Summer Saturdays in 1959 this train was extended beyond Lydney Town to Whitecroft and Parkend on a freight only line. Regular passenger trains were withdrawn beyond Lydney in the 1920s. Those were the days

 

[HowardGWR]

For the first few times we travelled through Fishponds we just laughed and laughed. Sorry pedantic Bristolian, but that is how the name took us at that age.

For the life of me I cannot imagine what was amusing. Do tell. I enjoyed the Cornishman reference. I swear I have seen that scene from the bridge at Lawrence Hill station with no banker. Either that or the 4F was being left behind at Barrow Road. It did happen and of course it was very noticeable that a very smart Castle with gleaming brown and cream coaches was put on that service. About 1956-7 from memory.

 

[contrex]

For the first few times we travelled through Fishponds we just laughed and laughed. Sorry pedantic Bristolian, but that is how the name took us at that age.

For the life of me I cannot imagine what was amusing. Do tell.

Lots of non-Bristolians seem to think Fishponds is a funny name, but my mate from Fishponds laughs at people who say they come from "Blackhorse".

 

[76020]

I did a return trip from London Paddington to Newbury yesterday and I thought I would post an update or lack of it to be more precise.

I would say from Airport Junction to just east of Reading, piling completed is at about 20% complete, the nearest pile to London is just east of Iver Station with scraps nearly up to Airport Junction, on this section, including up and down, there are currently only about 20-25 masts installed, maybe things will start to move more quickly after Easter when I believe new signalling in brought into use in the Slough area.

I gave an update last December to say that Thorney Lane Bridge and Stoke Poges Bridge were the last to go under Crossrail, well I was wrong, there is a new bridge for Leigh Road just west of Slough which will open Oct 2015. so sorry about that.

From Southcote Junction, where the Basingstoke and Newbury lines divide, to Theale I would say piling is about 70-75% complete, from Theale to Thatcham there are about 30-40 piles installed which are there mostly around Thatcham/Midgham area, with scrapes going up to Newbury Racecourse, there are no masts installed west of Southcote Junction.

I am only an occasional traveller on the GWML, so I am not in the same league as those boys who have done a great job on reporting the Manchester/Liverpool electrification, I would like to say thanks to them for their efforts and the numerous updates and pictures.

 

[AdamHewitt]

There seems to be a conspiracy between NR, ORR and DfT to avoid giving new dates or even a meaningful project update.

Indeed.

On its ‘transparency’ webpages, Network Rail publishes a few spreadsheets and documents and other datasets (though with no public calendar of when anything’s updated, so you have to just check back every now and again and hope for the best).

These include a quarterly 'High Profile Projects' update, with info on costs, scope, estimated completion dates, percent complete, and 'comments'.

GW electrification has never been included, though all these are:

Thameslink Programme (Phase 1)
Thameslink Programme (Phase 2)
Borders
EGIP Programme
Aberdeen to Inverness
Highland Main Line Phase 2
Tram Train Project
Capacity Relief To The East Coast Mainline (GNGE)
North Programme (Yorkshire) incl. Trans-Pennine Electrification
ECML PSU Phase 1
GE OLE
SCADA Supervisory Renewals
Reading
Crossrail
Wolverhampton PSB Resignalling
East Kent Phase 2
Watford Jc Area Re-Signalling
Cardiff Area Signalling Renewal
North Lincolnshire
NWEP Phase 2
East West Rail Phase 1
Birmingham Gateway Projects (Network Rail elements)

Hard to understand why, unless they’re deliberately trying to be NON-transparent. Or does anyone have any other explanation?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30064794503

 

[Techniquest]

Unless the guys from the North West move down to the GWML I suspect we'll struggle to have such a well documented record of the wiring up of the Western!

Good to hear some progress is being made down there, I haven't been along the GWML much at all in recent years. Indeed I believe it's not that far off 3 years since my last trip to Bristol, and that was just a flying visit off a Voyager and onto a 143. I used to be down that way much more often, I think a day trip to the area is long overdue!

Anyway, I digress. Isn't Didcot to Reading supposed to be getting somewhat closer now, given the prototype SET is now here?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Unless the guys from the North West move down to the GWML I suspect we'll struggle to have such a well documented record of the wiring up of the Western!

Good to hear some progress is being made down there, I haven't been along the GWML much at all in recent years. Indeed I believe it's not that far off 3 years since my last trip to Bristol, and that was just a flying visit off a Voyager and onto a 143. I used to be down that way much more often, I think a day trip to the area is long overdue!

Anyway, I digress. Isn't Didcot to Reading supposed to be getting somewhat closer now, given the prototype SET is now here?

Presumably that will be on Old Dalby until that's ready?

Also, with the bases starting to go in, it must only be a matter of months now? I thought it was all the clearing work that took time.