I would urge the experts here to read that report very carefully and extract the salient points. The headline bears little relation to the meat of the article which, in itself, is poorly written and shows little grasp of the actual situation. I would also be surprised if this information is now out of date.
There is something very unbalanced about what is happening now. We see very large sums invested in modern rolling stock, some of which is replacing trains with years of life left, yet investment in the infrastructure is cut and cut. I would hate to think that it's all because new trains make an excellent photo-op for a transport minister, particularly if they are built in a UK plant (even if it's just assembling kits), whereas infrastructure just isn't sexy unless it is a new high speed line.
Spending on new trains does not come directly form the government account. Investment in the infrastructure now does.
That does not sound like a very modest reduction to me. I wonder why it was a 'signed letter' from Mr Brooks, that was leaked? Don't NR officials use email?
There are any number of options: attached to an email? Screen grab, printed copy put up in mess rooms for those without regular PC access? briefing note handed round? etc I doubt it was a hard copy letter sent from one person to another.
It would thus be very interesting to know what is 'putting pax lives at risk' and what isn't and what is in the improvement category. All very confusing and Mr Brooks would have been better-advised to make all concerned aware of those differences (assuming he wanted his letter to be leaked
).
I am fairly certain it wasn't written with the expectation it would be discussed by enthusiasts with little grasp of the situation! I am fairly certain the intended audience understand what is being said and what the words mean.
The railway has always had trouble with "renewals", because of the blurred boundary with "enhancements".
It also pretends sometimes that renewal like-for-like is "investment", whereas in reality it is just keeping the status quo railway.
I disagree - The distinction is quite clear. What does confuse the issue is the funding source.
How do you classify the S&C repair?
It's a (forced) renewal, but to a higher standard than what was there before.
It is a bit bigger job than just a renewal! The civil engineering work required just to stabilise the embankment is impressive.
The funder's view, is that if you are spending £x million you might as well get the best value for it, which ought to mean line speed increases or cost reductions or both.
Surely that is a sensible approach? What is wrong with that - NR spend our money after-all.
The WCML is supposed to be already capable of 140mph (track, OHLE), it's only prevented by the rules about signalling (cab signalling over 125mph), and the route has TASS, a form of cab signalling, anyway.
If not, tell me what the £8 billion WCRM was for?
that may as well have been done by the LNWR for all the connection it has with railway improvement works today...........
All very good points. I just don't think the NR spokesman did very well. Instead of his 0.3% point, he would have done better to explain, point for point, why the various savings headings were not detrimental to safety and why they were planned originally for CP5, if they were not needed.
No he wouldn't be better doing that - No one would listen and to suggest otherwise shows a Corbyn like lack of understanding of the modern media!
