Hendy Report

[Magicake]

I thought I would start a new thread on the Hendy report into Network Rail's CP5 projects. The report is due out alongside the Autumn statement tomorrow and the first report has appeared here: http://www.theguardian.com/busines...osborne-network-rail-budget-autumn-statement

The key points seem to be:

Sir Peter Hendy, the new chairman of Network Rail, has told the government that nearly all of the promised work could be delivered with additional funds – money the Treasury will now make available – although some will be postponed until the next funding period. The two electrification schemes “paused” in June – on the Midland Mainline and TransPennine route – will*be officially restarted, although delays will mean they are not completed until the next decade.

Looks like generally good news with extra funding. Looking forward to seeing the details...

Mods please move as necessary.

 

[Starmill]

I knew they wouldn't be able to take the hit on ditching 'Norwich in 90' and similar after they committed to MML / North TP wires. At some point, more money was going to be needed. Also ditching the TfL operating subsidy to pay for it sounds like a clever idea.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So they are going to continue to feed the monster?
If so, they will insist on management changes.
It feels just like Tom Winsor's review in c2005 where he demanded the Treasury pay up what he had decided NR should spend.
The casualty then was the SRA.

 

[WatcherZero]

Seems to be money to burn on rail capital schemes at the Dft, a National Audit Office report on franchising came out this week and it reveals that they received 80% more in franchise premiums from the three they have done since franchising was restarted than they expected, a couple of billion pounds over the next decade. Guardian seems to suggest that the money flowing in to rail capital schemes and the cuts to the revenue budget will practically cancel each other out.

 

[Starmill]

What's that? Passenger numbers and revenue are growing? And that might actually have the consequence of more funding being available for enhancements? Goodness you'd never have thought. Not as if we haven't paid for it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I knew they wouldn't be able to take the hit on ditching 'Norwich in 90'

Pretty difficult to 'take a hit' on a project that has never been committed for delivery.

 

[Magicake]

The full report can be found at http://www.networkrailmediacentre....rk-rail-s-investment-programme-november-2015

Apparently every single project is going ahead in some form or other with the majority happening in CP5.

 

[Starmill]

Pretty difficult to 'take a hit' on a project that has never been committed for delivery.

Of course you're correct it hasn't been committed for spending on from a delivery viewpoint. But what do you think might be the potential consequences and costs of the Government admitting that it will now not do so? Given the requirement made it into an ITT, huge is the answer - it isn't difficult at all.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Electrification:
Reading/Didcot by end 2017 (August, possibly)
Oxford/Newbury/Cardiff/Bristol by end 2019
Cardiff-Swansea pushed back to CP6
Maidenhead-Marlow deleted, no mention of Basingstoke

Bromsgrove end 2016
Walsall-Rugeley end 2017
Gospel Oak-Barking looks like end 2018.

No detail on East West Rail, Electric Spine pushed back to CP6.

A new set of detailed milestones will be published in early December.
The overarching problem is now "can NR deliver it", rather than "can NR afford it".

Much of the detail in the report is disappointingly generic and at times deliberately vague.

EDIT: I may have been pessimistic in reading the charts.
I assumed the years were calendar years, whereas they are more likely to be financial years (ie end 2019 should be March 2019, ie end of CP5).
So not quite as bad as I at first thought.
I think that means Reading/Didcot is Dec 2016, and the rest as far as Cardiff is Mar 2019.

 

[The Planner]

The full report can be found at http://www.networkrailmediacentre....rk-rail-s-investment-programme-november-2015

Apparently every single project is going ahead in some form or other with the majority happening in CP5.

Doesnt read like that to me, reads like that anything that isnt in GRIP4 (single option selection) is going to be delayed.

 

[Starmill]

It's going to take two more years to electrify Airport Jn to Didcot!? It really does take a while to sink in what's happened with this project.

 

[swt_passenger]

Maidenhead-Marlow deleted...

I thought Maidenhead to Marlow was already kicked into the long grass - despite it still appearing in the last enhancements milestones, the GW franchise brief clearly put it into 'beyond April 2019'.

Or has it been binned permanently now?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's going to take two more years to electrify Airport Jn to Didcot!? It really does take a while to sink in what's happened with this project.

To be fair, it does say the GW milestones are still under review (why?!).

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course you're correct it hasn't been committed for spending on from a delivery viewpoint. But what do you think might be the potential consequences and costs of the Government admitting that it will now not do so? Given the requirement made it into an ITT, huge is the answer - it isn't difficult at all.

Note that the franchise ITT requirement is 2 trains a day in each direction, and that both time of day and stopping patterns are notable for their absence.

There is no change of infrastructure needed to deliver that franchise requirement.

 

[snowball]

Looks like the only area he's worked out in detail is the Western. The chart for that is annotated with years and months where everything else just has CP5 and CP6.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Looks like the only area he's worked out in detail is the Western. The chart for that is annotated with years and months where everything else just has CP5 and CP6.

ERTMS on the GW is put back to CP6, and isn't even mentioned for the ECML.

 

[plcd1]

Nice reply from old Uncle Patrick to the DfT with a rather sharp warning to Sir Peter Hendy at the end!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479969/hendy-response-letter.pdf

"This period of uncertainly and speculation has been deeply regrettable and
cannot be allowed to happen again." In other words "Well Peter you've dug us out of a hole this time and you've won this battle but out one foot wrong and it's game over". Well that's my reading of it anyway!

 

[Starmill]

Note that the franchise ITT requirement is 2 trains a day in each direction, and that both time of day and stopping patterns are notable for their absence.

There is no change of infrastructure needed to deliver that franchise requirement.

Quite true. Perhaps this Government can convince people that this change amounts to fulfillment of expectations. It wouldn't be the most devious thing they've done!

 

[HowardGWR]

Nice reply from old Uncle Patrick to the DfT with a rather sharp warning to Sir Peter Hendy at the end!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479969/hendy-response-letter.pdf

"This period of uncertainly and speculation has been deeply regrettable and
cannot be allowed to happen again." In other words "Well Peter you've dug us out of a hole this time and you've won this battle but out one foot wrong and it's game over". Well that's my reading of it anyway!

Includes the rationalisation about the £1.8 billion flogging off of assets. If that was worth doing, it could have been decided anyway, regardless of progress on capital projects. If those are earning rents and leases, it means a permanent diminution in NR revenue in future.

 

[jimm]

To be fair, it does say the GW milestones are still under review (why?!).

In the Oxford area most likely because of the situation I outlined in the GW electrification thread on Sunday, page 115, post 1722

In the case of Oxford I'm afraid it really isn't that simple, as the scope of the work needed in the area has been in a constant state of flux for several years. What looked like a fairly simple project to replace life-expired signals in the area and cater for Chiltern's London service plus the electrification got overtaken by the go-ahead for East West Rail, the resulting rethink on what sort of station you would then need to handle the extra trains, providing capacity for them around Oxford and down to Didcot, possible provision for a grade-separated junction at Oxford North, possible passenger services up the Cowley branch, etc, etc... wrestling with jelly would be easier.

Some sort of resignalling and track alterations will be needed early next year (last I heard was that a blockade was pencilled in for the February half-term to do this work) to allow Chiltern services to reach Oxford station anyway, with the new immunised signalling also allowing some sort of basic electrification to take place but there seem to be doubts about spending money on that wiring work now if the station is to undergo major rebuilding, resulting in a much-altered track layout, in the next few years.

If the Hendy doctrine is that you align all the key work you want to carry out to achieve a coherent plan and spend your money efficiently, the current situation at Oxford - and down to Didcot - rode a coach and horses through that. The changes to allow Chiltern to use the station will have to go ahead in some form but after that it probably does make more sense to combine all the other changes to the station, track, signals and wiring work into some sort of overarching strategy, and much of the likely work around Oxford is being pushed back into CP6, according to page 26 of the report - though presumably these would follow hard on the heels of whatever is needed to get wires into Oxford by the end of CP5.

Elements of scope within some specific projects will continue to be delivered within CP6, these include:
• Great Western Electrification; discrete sections of electrification Cardiff to Swansea
• Oxford Station Area Capacity & Station Enlargement Phase 2; Oxford Station Area
Capacity & Station Enlargement: reprogrammed to CP6 to better align with Oxford City Council’s aspirations to improve the highway through the Botley Road Bridge

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If the Hendy doctrine is that you align all the key work you are doing to achieve a single delivery date and spend your money efficiently, the current situation at Oxford - and down to Didcot - rode a coach and horses through that. The changes to allow Chiltern to use the station will have to go ahead in some form but after that it probably does make more sense to combine all the other changes to the station, track, signals and wiring work into some sort of coherent, overarching plan, which will most likely need until the end of CP5 to deliver.

The Hendy Report says this about Oxford:

CP5: Great Western Route Modernisation Programme which includes Oxford Corridor Phase 0 and works associated with progressing the Transport and Works Act order

CP6: Oxford Station Area Capacity & Station Enlargement Phase 2; Oxford Station Area Capacity & Station Enlargement: reprogrammed to CP6 to better align with Oxford City Council’s aspirations to improve the highway through the Botley Road Bridge

We seem to be missing a Phase 1.

 

[jimm]

The Hendy Report says this about Oxford:

We seem to be missing a Phase 1.

Sorry, I was adding bits to my post as I went along, so added the line from the report after you posted.

I believe Phase 1 is the work being done next year to provide the signalling for Chiltern's services - notably making the Jericho line on the east side of the formation north of the station bi-directional - the two new long bay platforms at the north end of the station for Chiltern and GWR's Banbury/Cotswold stopping services, and the commissioning of the extended down loop line from Oxford North junction up to Wolvercote to allow passenger services to use this to overtake long freight trains that will be held on the main line. The loop is seen on the right in this picture, with rails delivered back in August ready for tracklaying http://www.hondawanderer.com/37401_37405_Wolvercote_2015.htm

 

[The Planner]

We seem to be missing a Phase 1.

Page 37, last one on the CP5 list.

 

[mwmbwls]

Includes the rationalisation about the £1.8 billion flogging off of assets. If that was worth doing, it could have been decided anyway, regardless of progress on capital projects. If those are earning rents and leases, it means a permanent diminution in NR revenue in future.

Indeed so.
The BBC reports

Network Rail wants to sell £1.8bn of railway arch space, disused depots and shop space in bigger stations to help raise the cash to upgrade UK railways.
New chairman Sir Peter Hendy came up with the idea after he was drafted in this summer to rescue the company's disastrous £12.5bn enhancement plan.
He says by selling off non-core bits of property, Network Rail can now deliver "the bulk" of the planned programme.
It is the biggest SME (small and medium-sized enterprise) UK landlord.
When Sir Peter came on board, costs had been spiralling and deadlines slipping because Network Rail promised major changes by 2019 that it simply could not deliver.
The Department for Transport will begin an eight-week consultation on the report next month.

Focusing on your knitting is a good idea. However we need to be able to avoid the point raised by the comedian, Peter Cook who once said “I have learnt from my mistakes and can replicate them perfectly”. Earlier property rationalisations have from time to time frustrated the prospects of restructuring the rail network to keep pace with future needs. Flogging off the old off line wagon load based goods depot for a super-market is probably not a general problem but building across track beds is. There needs to be a wide consultation process as to the need for protection of future routes and deciding what is or could be core or non core. Property, particularly former station buildings, should be sold on a leasehold rather than a freehold basis to allow for future needs to be assessed on a regular basis.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Page 37, last one on the CP5 list.

Indeed (except that list omits a Phase 0!).
The project list is actually clearer than the more detailed regional descriptions higher up.
Oxford-Bletchley electrification now CP6.
East West Phase 2 now starting "as soon as possible", which is not a project management term I recognise.
I see Windermere and Wigan electrification is now CP6 (GRIP 3 only in CP5).

 

[jimm]

Page 37, last one on the CP5 list.

But are Oxford Station Area Capacity & Station Enlargement and Oxford Corridor Capacity Improvements - which I have always taken to mean the line down to Didcot as well as work in the city of Oxford - the same thing or different?

What's on Pages 25-26 and 37 don't really marry up in that regard - and there may be other contradictions about locations other than Oxford.

Looks a bit like they have rushed this out to coincide with the Autumn Statement rather than giving it a thorough double-check before releasing it.

 

[davetheguard]

What are the implications of any project slipping from CP5 to CP6? Are we just talking about timescales slipping to the right, or is it more serious than that?

In short, is any of the CP6 work actually funded?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What are the implications of any project slipping from CP5 to CP6? Are we just talking about timescales slipping to the right, or is it more serious than that?
In short, is any of the CP6 work actually funded?

This is from Patrick McLoughlin's statement to parliament yesterday about the Hendy report: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/future-of-rail

Firstly, I want to be absolutely clear that no infrastructure schemes have been cancelled.

On the other hand, CP6 funding isn't settled till the HLOS round in 2017/18, so you just have to hope that projects don't "disappear" before then.
Many projects are now split over the boundary, and you would have thought that once started, they would continue.

 

[MarkRedon]

No detail on East West Rail, Electric Spine pushed back to CP6.

A new set of detailed milestones will be published in early December.
The overarching problem is now "can NR deliver it", rather than "can NR afford it".

Much of the detail in the report is disappointingly generic and at times deliberately vague.

As others have suggested, this has every appearance of being the result of a bit of a rush job. A key section reads:

What does Network Rail now plan to deliver? Network Rail will continue to deliver a very significant enhancement programme during the period to 2019. Most of the originally planned projects will still be delivered in CP5 with significant benefits for passengers and freight users. The key benefits that will be delivered in England & Wales are summarised on the following page, with more detail in the next section of this report. The benefits and scope of each programme are included in individual project summaries which will be published in early December. This includes a description of the scope, outputs, assumptions and risks relating to each programme, reflecting the impact of revised cost forecasts and delivery milestones.

[Emphasis mine.]

Thus the earliest we can expect any clarity on issues such as – to take an example which is particularly unclear - the order in which developments will be undertaken in the Oxford area: is early December.

 

[DarloRich]

This is from Patrick McLoughlin's statement to parliament yesterday about the Hendy report: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/future-of-rail


On the other hand, CP6 funding isn't settled till the HLOS round in 2017/18, so you just have to hope that projects don't "disappear" before then.
Many projects are now split over the boundary, and you would have thought that once started, they would continue.

Yes the word YET seems missing from the statement by the Transport Secretary