Hendy Report

[DarloRich]

My I suggest that several posters ( the majority?) consider and absorb the postings of P. Phlopp Esq. Learned, concise, cogent, sensible and much more polite than I am prepared to be.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The following TfGM paper has a table on page 5 showing updated timescales for the various projects affecting the area:
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/461/item_14
It seems most projects have been delayed to some extent.

Just to observe that the TfGM report contains nothing new, and reflects the content of the Hendy report for the north.
The detailed CP5 plans (eg new dates for Manchester-Blackpool wiring) are still awaited.

 

[snowball]

The following TfGM paper has a table on page 5 showing updated timescales for the various projects affecting the area:

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/461/item_14

It seems most projects have been delayed to some extent.

Maybe I've been reading the diagrams in the Hendy report wrong, but that document seems to contain more information than I've been picking up from Hendy and to be much clearer.

For example the completion of the extra platforms at Piccadilly at a later date than the changes at Oxford Road comes as a surprise to me.

 

[lejog]

The following TfGM paper has a table on page 5 showing updated timescales for the various projects affecting the area:

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/461/item_14

It seems most projects have been delayed to some extent.

The table certainly shows more detail that the Hendy report, however I am unconvinced by its accuracy, e.g.

Rochdale south bay + Calder Valley line speed improvements
Due Dec-17,
Expected date CP5/CP6 TBC

Although this story clearly shows work is underway on the Rochdale platform and reports expected completion by May 2016. I suppose some of the line spped improvements may be pushed back though.

 

[snowball]

An interesting typo in Roger Ford's email preview of his Modern Railways column: he refers to Sir Peter as "St Peter" at one point.

He also points out that the report on the website was changed on the day of publication, from saying electrification to Oxford would not be completed in CP5 to saying it would.

Edit: For the first time ever I've received the magazine on the same day as the e-preview!

 

[Elecman]

An interesting typo in Roger Ford's email preview of his Modern Railways column: he refers to Sir Peter as "St Peter" at one point.

He also points out that the report on the website was changed on the day of publication, from saying electrification to Oxford would not be completed in CP5 to saying it would.

Edit: For the first time ever I've received the magazine on the same day as the e-preview!

So did i

 

[snowball]

He also points out that the report on the website was changed on the day of publication, from saying electrification to Oxford would not be completed in CP5 to saying it would.!

Both versions of the Hendy report are on the Modern Railways website here:

http://www.modern-railways.com/view_article.asp?ID=9327

 

[Greybeard33]

Both versions of the Hendy report are on the Modern Railways website here:

http://www.modern-railways.com/view_article.asp?ID=9327

The "incorrect version" of the report has the "Northern Hub second phase", including Oxford Road station remodelling, postponed into CP6 (2022 completion). The official version brings this forward two years to 2018-20, following on from Ordsall Chord completion. The "incorrect version" also has a section, on pp10-11, describing the North of England work to be postponed into CP6. This section has been redacted from the official version, but is quoted in Annex B of the TfGM paper linked by Chris125 above.

My guess is that the "incorrect version" reflected NR's initial assessment of what could still be delivered in CP5 within the available budget, whereas the official version rowed back to the minimum that Ministers (facing taunts about the "Northern Powercut") considered politically acceptable. Which begs the question, where is the additional funding going to come from?

 

[DarloRich]

If there is an incorrect version why waste time reading it?

As for funding some comes from central government and some from nr generation - such as a fire sale of property interests

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The "incorrect version" of the report has the "Northern Hub second phase", including Oxford Road station remodelling, postponed into CP6 (2022 completion). The official version brings this forward two years to 2018-20, following on from Ordsall Chord completion. The "incorrect version" also has a section, on pp10-11, describing the North of England work to be postponed into CP6. This section has been redacted from the official version, but is quoted in Annex B of the TfGM paper linked by Chris125 above.

My guess is that the "incorrect version" reflected NR's initial assessment of what could still be delivered in CP5 within the available budget, whereas the official version rowed back to the minimum that Ministers (facing taunts about the "Northern Powercut") considered politically acceptable. Which begs the question, where is the additional funding going to come from?

There's already more money made available - changes to track renewals, alterations to resignalling works and there's more revenue from franchise operations to feed into the DfT budget, which will allow money to be moved around and cover the electrification increases.

You should also expect additional funding to be spun politically for the 2020 general election, and I'm hoping electrification will be moved out of the Control Period structure and committed to an a rolling basis, of an average number of route miles per annum, with the routes to be electrified agreed in advance of the CP settlements. Trying to squeeze 6 or 7 years of work into 5 years of each Control Period isn't helpful at all.

It also depends on the precise reason for the changes - not everything is significantly over budget and can't be afforded within the original CP5 settlement (when broken down into individual projects). There are some projects which are only a little over budget but being held up by contractors being damn awkward and quitting half way through the work program, as was the case with the NW electrification.

There are work programs, such as gauge clearance, which are ahead of schedule and which will save money as a result too, and with the price of steel and copper falling, fuel getting cheaper etc, there are cost savings which can be realised on masts, gantries, piles, concrete, transportation and such. It's only a few percentage points, but it's going to allow some of the contingency put aside for construction inflationary pressures to be reassigned too.

Transport Scotland have experienced some of the same savings in contingency funds with the replacement Forth crossing, it has enabled construction works to begin earlier than planned on the A9 dualling project, we hope to be able to realise some similar savings on electrification. In saying all that, building an entirely new structure is not as difficult as trying to modernise an old one - hence the problems on the old Forth road bridge - old things come back to bite you when you least expect it.

 

[Moonshot]

There's already more money made available - changes to track renewals, alterations to resignalling works and there's more revenue from franchise operations to feed into the DfT budget, which will allow money to be moved around and cover the electrification increases.

You should also expect additional funding to be spun politically for the 2020 general election, and I'm hoping electrification will be moved out of the Control Period structure and committed to an a rolling basis, of an average number of route miles per annum, with the routes to be electrified agreed in advance of the CP settlements. Trying to squeeze 6 or 7 years of work into 5 years of each Control Period isn't helpful at all.

It also depends on the precise reason for the changes - not everything is significantly over budget and can't be afforded within the original CP5 settlement (when broken down into individual projects). There are some projects which are only a little over budget but being held up by contractors being damn awkward and quitting half way through the work program, as was the case with the NW electrification.

There are work programs, such as gauge clearance, which are ahead of schedule and which will save money as a result too, and with the price of steel and copper falling, fuel getting cheaper etc, there are cost savings which can be realised on masts, gantries, piles, concrete, transportation and such. It's only a few percentage points, but it's going to allow some of the contingency put aside for construction inflationary pressures to be reassigned too.

Transport Scotland have experienced some of the same savings in contingency funds with the replacement Forth crossing, it has enabled construction works to begin earlier than planned on the A9 dualling project, we hope to be able to realise some similar savings on electrification. In saying all that, building an entirely new structure is not as difficult as trying to modernise an old one - hence the problems on the old Forth road bridge - old things come back to bite you when you least expect it.

The above in bold was the very point made by Network Rail to the TSC a couple of years ago.....to quote " We seem to get hung up on control periods "

 

[HowardGWR]

Philip, with this bedside manner you have, I am now comforted like someone that just been to the doctor with worrying symptoms (brought on by reading too many Roger Ford articles) and have been told gently that I am simply over-anxious and just need to take a few aspirins!

Greetings of the season by the way and I hope to read more of this quality in 2016. so I hope you stick around, Bald Rick too, and all the profs who write in.

 

[snowball]

If there is an incorrect version why waste time reading it?

Because it's more likely to reflect what Hendy actually thought possible before ministerial pressure intervened.

 

[DarloRich]

Because it's more likely to reflect what Hendy actually thought possible before ministerial pressure intervened.

Still a massive waste of time - government gets what government wants

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Philip, with this bedside manner you have, I am now comforted like someone that just been to the doctor with worrying symptoms (brought on by reading too many Roger Ford articles) and have been told gently that I am simply over-anxious and just need to take a few aspirins!

Greetings of the season by the way and I hope to read more of this quality in 2016. so I hope you stick around, Bald Rick too, and all the profs who write in.

Thanks.

The anxiety will probably set in again closer to the end of CP5, but there's enough good results going on to give us a bit of hope that the worst results are behind us and we can get on with work more effectively.

 

[Bald Rick]

Philip, with this bedside manner you have, I am now comforted like someone that just been to the doctor with worrying symptoms (brought on by reading too many Roger Ford articles) and have been told gently that I am simply over-anxious and just need to take a few aspirins!

Greetings of the season by the way and I hope to read more of this quality in 2016. so I hope you stick around, Bald Rick too, and all the profs who write in.

Well thank you Sir.

There will be some 'interesting' discussions between DfT and Treasury in the next year, that's for sure.

 

[edwin_m]

Still a massive waste of time - government gets what government wants

Government didn't get what it wanted when what it wanted was the GW, MML and TP electrification schemes all of a sudden and all at once. Or at least not at the date and price that it was led to expect. If this indicates that Hendy has been pushed/railroaded/bounced into offering more than he thinks prudent, then I fear we are just storing up similar problems for a few years time.

 

[Class 170101]

Its noticeable that some schemes appear to have vanished altogether.

I couldn't find anything on Felixstowe branch re-doubling nor Haughley Junction doubling either.

Perhaps I missed it and some other readers have seen it.

 

[ironstone11]

Its noticeable that some schemes appear to have vanished altogether.

I couldn't find anything on Felixstowe branch re-doubling nor Haughley Junction doubling either.

Perhaps I missed it and some other readers have seen it.

Under Improvements for freight customers, on page 28 of the Report it states:-

During CP5, a scheme to increase the capacity of the Felixstowe branch is being developed with the aim of supporting increased freight train paths in CP6.

It doesn't say doubling, but I don't think full doubling was ever on the cards anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

Under Improvements for freight customers, on page 28 of the Report it states:-


It doesn't say doubling, but I don't think full doubling was ever on the cards anyway.

I concur on that full doubling isn't on the cards but more of the line is meant to be doubled than is the case today.

 

[snowball]

The update to the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan, which Hendy promised for "early December", is now out:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Enhancements-Delivery-Plan-Update.pdf

In addition the DfT is opening a consultation on Hendy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t-programme-the-hendy-report-consultation.pdf

These links only worked for me at the second or third attempt.

Edit: The first document has DRAFT all over it and is apparently a draft of the update due in March. Thus by missing out a couple of scheduled updates we have switched from getting them after the due date to getting them in advance.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The update to the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan, which Hendy promised for "early December", is now out:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Enhancements-Delivery-Plan-Update.pdf

In addition the DfT is opening a consultation on Hendy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t-programme-the-hendy-report-consultation.pdf .

Thanks for posting. Downloaded and I will read and inwardly digest tonight.

Initial on CP5 Enhancements P26 ES003J and also P37 - both show lines that Sheffield - Doncaster and York/Leeds are "inked in". This is new surely - in a good way.

 

[MarkRedon]

These links only worked for me at the second or third attempt.

I have found an alternative route to the
Hendy Enhancements Delivery Plan which works more reliably...

Go to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Hendy-review/

Click on the link at the bottom of that page:
Download the Hendv Enhancement Delivery Plan Update here

I've yet to read what's there!

 

[snowball]

I have found an alternative route to the
Hendy Enhancements Delivery Plan which works more reliably...

Go to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Hendy-review/

Click on the link at the bottom of that page:
Download the Hendv Enhancement Delivery Plan Update here

That actually leads to the same web address as the one in my link.

It's working better for me now than when I first tried it.

 

[HowardGWR]

I have found an alternative route to the
Hendy Enhancements Delivery Plan which works more reliably...

Go to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Hendy-review/

Click on the link at the bottom of that page:
Download the Hendv Enhancement Delivery Plan Update here

I've yet to read what's there!

Is this a new technique? By writing DRAFT all over it, he's just hoping that Roger Ford of Modern Railways will find all the nonsenses and enable him to produce something believable?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Well, Roger Ford will have a field day with those dates for the WR electrification and IEP clearance.

I can imagine the ministers in box getting rather full from irate stakeholders from Paddington to Penzance (and Swansea), once they have read when NR think they will getting their new stock and services.

It is a good thing that reality may be somewhat different to what is stated in this document.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is this a new technique? By writing DRAFT all over it, he's just hoping that Roger Ford of Modern Railways will find all the nonsenses and enable him to produce something believable?

I was thinking exactly the same thing

 

[lejog]

It appears that various capacity and line speed improvements to the TPE North and Calder Valley lines which previously were part of the TPE North Electrification project have been split out into other projects and will not be delayed into CP6 - although it was pretty obvious from the franchise announcements that these were going ahead in CP5.

Interestingly specific references to a turnback at Micklefield or alternative (i.e Leeds East Parkway) have been dropped and now "increased capacity on the Calder Valley route is dependent on .... capacity enhancements at Leeds station" rather than running through east of Leeds.

 

[snowball]

It appears that various capacity and line speed improvements to the TPE North and Calder Valley lines which previously were part of the TPE North Electrification project have been split out into other projects and will not be delayed into CP6 - although it was pretty obvious from the franchise announcements that these were going ahead in CP5.

On TPE North a larger programme of capacity and line speed improvements is now proposed than before. That was part of the whole pause/unpause thing. So it's not surprising they've become a separate item.

The Calder Valley improvements were never listed under TPE North electrification in the first place but were a separate item under the overall Northern Programme heading.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Initial on CP5 Enhancements P26 ES003J and also P37 - both show lines that Sheffield - Doncaster and York/Leeds are "inked in". This is new surely - in a good way.

QUOTE " Network Rail’s obligation In CP6, the project will develop a solution to the provision of an electrified railway between Sheffield and the ECML at both Doncaster and South Kirkby Junction, by completing single-option selection (GRIP 3)."QUOTE

Definitely looks new to me.