Infrastructure without NR input?

[TheWalrus]

Recently there have been a few comments on here saying that infrastructure would cost a lot less if carried out by an independent company, opposed to Network Rail. Is this so? If so why don't they get someone else to do the GW electrification instead? And any other infrastructure projects.

 

[GB]

independant as in how? Surely that is the point of NR...it is independant from the train operating companies?

 

[TheWalrus]

independant as in how? Surely that is the point of NR...it is independant from the train operating companies?

Basically a different company that can do the work.

 

[Tomnick]

So contractors to Network Rail? Like... the contractors that already undertake renewals and other works for Network Rail?

 

[Any Permitted]

You mean contractors doing work for Network Rail? God, this is a great idea you should write a letter to the DfT and tell them to get rid of their totally in-house maintenance department.

This is sarcasm.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The basic point is what NR delivers up is so expensive that even when the times were good money wise so little was done to enhance the network that now money is tight and with NR doing stuff nothing will get done.

Basically NR does things to set over elaborate standards that anything comparably in the normal construction industry would do at a fraction of the cost. Before we all scream "its a railway" lets remember that an awful lot of what needs doing involves building work and maintenance, moving earth using diggers etc all common features found elsewhere. Foreign railways do it cheaper and so did BR. The turnback installed at Kidderminster a few years ago for Chiltern (involving mechanical signaling) was costed at £1 million plus by NR. The nearby Severn Valley Railway struggled to cost it at much over the average signalman's annual salary.

 

[Tomnick]

I'd rather hope that it's not just NR who comply with the Group Standards - any contractors would have to follow exactly the same standards. I understand that NR's main supplier of parts contributes greatly to the over-inflated cost of projects - a private company (and the only source of many parts). So it's not all wonderfully cheap outside NR!

 

[68000]

I have seen some amount of over engineering to comply with various standards. Just look at the typical signal structure now installed, it is an absolute monster!

 

[Tomnick]

But regardless of who does the work, it still has to be designed to the same standards. Incidentally, signal structures are surely designed (structurally, so leaving aside the substantial ladder to access the S&T dance floor) to the applicable British Standards - so any over-engineering isn't limited to the railways (and I've encountered similar elsewhere).

 

[Trog]

I have seen some amount of over engineering to comply with various standards. Just look at the typical signal structure now installed, it is an absolute monster!

I have always assumed they were built that way so the S&T could work on the signal heads without having to get out of their vans.

 

[Aictos]

End of the day I finally believe you get what you pay for meaning if you pay extra you can be sure of the quality.

Now back in BR days, projects got done and seeing how much they had to survive on was good going but in today's railways, everything is overpriced and thus there's no reason nor drive to deliver projects which is priced reasonable could easily be done in half the cost and half the time too.

Take the Wrexham to Bidston line for example, that really ought to be 3rd rail to have Merseyrail take that line over freeing up a 150 or 2 from ATW to use elsewhere.

Or take my station for example, it would be good if the signalling between Hertford North and Langley Junction got improved as the there's a limit to how many trains can use the area due to the long signal sections but it will never happen as would pointwork to enable Down trains to use all platforms rather then just platforms 2 and 3 or even crossovers.

You could go onto the £400 million that the rail industry bleats it loses every year but when they know some fencing might just reduce some of the lost income they don't want to know!

 

[TheWalrus]

So could infrastructure be done without NR do you think?

 

[bangor-toad]

So could infrastructure be done without NR do you think?

Errr, correct me if I'm wrong, but yes.

I'm going to clarify this quickly:
Any ongoing maintainence is something NR should be doing.


However for new projects, can't these be built by others? (Obviously to the correct set of standards and regulations).
In fact, weren't many of the Chiltern Evergreen 2 upgrades and new builds done by Chiltern Trains and then ownership was transfered to NR once they were concluded?
I think this seems to have all worked out quite well.

Jason

 

[The Planner]

The Evergreen stuff is a bit of a grey area for this I think. All of the upgrades have been on a self contained piece of line that 99% of the time only Chiltern takes advantage of.

What do you do for new projects where several TOCs are using it ?? TOC A decides it wants to upgrade a junction and would get most of the benefit of it, does it ask other TOCs to chip in ?? what happens if they pay for it all, TOCs B, C etc... get some benefit for no outlay ?? messy...

 

[LE Greys]

The Evergreen stuff is a bit of a grey area for this I think. All of the upgrades have been on a self contained piece of line that 99% of the time only Chiltern takes advantage of.

What do you do for new projects where several TOCs are using it ?? TOC A decides it wants to upgrade a junction and would get most of the benefit of it, does it ask other TOCs to chip in ?? what happens if they pay for it all, TOCs B, C etc... get some benefit for no outlay ?? messy...

A perfect argument for one route-one operator, I think.

To me real problem always seems to be delays, leading to extra planning and a vast increase in costs before work even begins. I would be curious to see some figures as to how long the GWR took to decide to build the Berks & Hants short-cuts 100 years ago and how much they would have cost in today's money. This involved twenty miles of new main line and upgrades to 70-odd miles of branch, a lot more than say reopening Bletchley-Bicester.

 

[moggie]

Ok for Evergreen 3 you have a TOC as client, a construction comapany as Principle Contractor who lets the design and build of a large part of the railway systems (not the formation) to specialist rail contractors who have to gain design and build appovals from Network Rail (even though the specialist Rail contractors have the necessary skills to carry out their work) each with their own layers of managment,finance and engineering staff etc etc - and we wonder why things are expensive?:roll:

 

[TheWalrus]

Moggie, are you saying that infrastructure could be done without NR? If so why cant we do the electrification projects for a lot cheaper?

 

[daccer]

I dio think NR get a bit of a rough press. They are after all a very new company (less than 10 years old) and inherited a whole heap of problems from Railtrack. They have also been forced to face some of the issues caused by decades of underinvestment in the railways at a time when demand was booming. So when all is said and done I think they are doing ok. The main issue with NR does seem to be the cost of everything to do with the railways and infrastructure is no different. Balance this with the fact that NR have to find savings of 25% or so over the next five years and still manage growth. Also if other companies are brought in to do major construction projects and they are not running under the auspices of NR then who is responsible for project management and cost overruns. Also any project on the railway will have an effect on the safe running of the railway during the construction phase and so seperating the two will be very difficult. Stand alone new projects such as HS1 and HS2 have and can be run seperately from NR. I would be interested to see how the costing for HS1 comes out against continental high speed lines and that had nothing to do with NR!

 

[222666]

Oh absolutely, HS2 is a pipe dream!

I take it NR still owns land(s) adjoining stations & the like... I know the economy is fooxord but there are many stations with derelict wastelands outside them that could have hotels, shops etc... can't this be directly ploughed into modernisation works, seeing as how a lot of modernsation entails REMOVING un-needed railway infrastructure (old boxes, sidings & old yards)?

 

[Old Timer]

After experience of both Railtrack, and Network Rail, as well as experience in both private and public systems elsewhere in the world, I have to say that the Network Rail model is the most flawed, and the most expensive.

I and many of my colleaguers now look back on the Railtrack days as being a time when we nearly had it right. Not wholly right, but within a matrix-type organisational structure, as best as we could hope for.

To my view, Network Rail is a monster that has been created which will ultimately desroy our Industry. As time goes on it is clear that its structure and modus operandi was calculated to enrich a number of people close to Labour, and was set up in a cynical and calculated manner simply for the sake of Political expediency and as a means of increasing Treasury revenue, whilst removing much if not all of the Political risk.

The outcome is an organisation that is neither fit for its intended purpose nor sustainable in the longer term.

I have other views on safety which I would not wish to comment on publicly.

Network Rail have become very good at hype and spin, and self-publicity. They have so far managed to represent failure as success. Maintenance despite the hype is in a far worse state than it ever was under BR or indeed the Infrastructure Maintenance Contractors regime.

Now I fully expect those who wear Politically rose-tinted glasses to leap intot he fray, but to these people I would ask from what base they comment.

None of them in the main have worked or indeed work within the Industry. The main protagonists do not work in Infrastructure anyway, and are in no position to comment as to how this was managed on a day to day and long term basis.

I was one of those who, to my great shame now, welcomed the introduction of Network Rail.

What I and my colleagues did not anticipate was the degree to which Railway engineering experience would be denigrated by Network Rail, nor how they would proceed down a route that has mortgaged maintenance against a massive increase in bureaucracy.

Whilst we watch maintenance taking almost monthly hits and continuing reorganisations and job reductions, so we see an increasingly bloated and incompetent Infrastructure Projects organisation expanded and gorging itself to excess.

IP delivers absolutelly no benefit to the Industry. It is merely a fatted calf which continues to employ increasing numbers of Project Managers and "engineers", most of whom have little if any knowledge or indeed passion for the Industry. They are attracted in by the salaries which are much greater than in the Industries from whence they come.

They are then put through a farcial "training" systems, the result of which appears to be a re-programming of the brain that makes them both arrogant and aggressive to the very Contractors who DO have the specialist experience and knowledge.

Some of the decisions and instructions which have come from these people are mind-boggling in their stupidity and demonstrate again and again their lack of appreciation and understanding.

Please do not gain the impression that all Network Rail staff are bad, simply that the more modern incomers are a different breed and are being deliberately recruited to replace those who know their jobs. These people are now in the ascendency.

 

[cyclebytrain]

Network Rail have become very good at hype and spin, and self-publicity. They have so far managed to represent failure as success. Maintenance despite the hype is in a far worse state than it ever was under BR or indeed the Infrastructure Maintenance Contractors regime.

A bad project with a good presentation is doomed eventually, a good project with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.

 

[tbtc]

Like many people, I felt that the demise of Railtrack would lead to a better infrastructure / maintenance set up. All the confused relationships between contractors/ subcontractors/ other parties would be replaced by a clearer organisational structure, with more things "in house", meaning more accountability and saved money.

However, the reality seems to be that things are more complicated and expensive than before.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=5337&NewsAreaID=2 - £2.6 million for one new platform at Chesterfield station? (considering the platform used to be there and didn't involve realigning tracks or blocking the main lines for any period) - it doesn't inspire me that they are keeping costs down *or* building quality.

The trouble with the question of "should other parties build stuff instead" is that there's a clear difference between Chiltern building on "their" lines (only one TOC involved, plus it was meant to enhance their services/ capacity/ routes). Can you imagine TOCs getting together and agreeing to put another platform in Chesterfield (given that there are three TOCs)? Or agreeing to spend money on long term replacements (which won't increase capacity, just maintain infrastructure)? Is there any real alternative? The idea of one TOC running all lines in an area may appeal, but short term considerations may make them less likely to invest in long term projects

 

[Old Timer]

I suggest the solution is really quite simple.

All that the EU Directive requires in essence is separation of operations from infrastructure. The French get around this by setting up their maintenance as a second "business" which is the only Company which is alowed to tender.

The French being French of course will igore all laws which they do not agree with or which will damage their own interests. The collective EU is only used by them when it suits their purpose or to obstruct any form of competition against them. So as the French are allowed to gte away with it, then so should the UK.

Now we really should look at going back to a regionalisation of the Railways, with all existing rolling stock being taken from the ROSCOs and lumped into the regional franchise.

Each franchise would be constructed into two, operations and infrastructure, with a volume discount for a combined tender bid.

An agreed minimum level of service would be agreed, and the winner would be required to demonstrate that they are reacting to public demand by adjusting services to demand.

In the initial years a maximum level of fare per mile could be applied, with the winner able to set fares as they wished up to this limit.

Infrastructure wide, the winner would be required to maintain the existing infrastrucure at its existing level and would be required to upgrade its infrastructure to take account of emerging markets and travel patterns. There would be freedom for them to upgrade wherever they wished. Such upgrades would include higher speed junctions, but would also require provision for the operation of freight under no less favourable terms.

Freight operators would be charged a rate per mile and the reasonableness of this could be tested by independent arbitration if it came to it. Again the Infrastructure operator would be required to operate the Railway in the best interestes of all parties, and to this end there would be a "Chinese Wall " separation in the case of a combined operator, with clear targets and levels being set against which THAT company would be required to comply.

The DfT would oversee from a simple supervisory position, stepping in where there was a need. A Company failing to comply with its obligations could be stripped of its franchise without compensation and would be legally liable to forego a penalty based on a Parent Company Guarantee.

THe DfT would also under the HMRI process oversee safety, and compliance.

RSSB would specifiy minimum infrastructure maintenance leverls, track quality standards, and intervention levels, complete with legally binding intervention actions.

The cost savings would be considerable, and the franchisee would be locked into an ongoing improvement programme but with the freedom to set fares at will (within reason).

Open access Operators would simply enter into agreed contracts for access.

Open access Operators would be people like Cross Country, and other similar cross boundary operators. Franchisees would be free to set up joint cross boundary services but would have to set their prices based upon the open access operators access charges, thus removing any monopolistic charging risk.

 

[LE Greys]

Can I ask what would happen if we decided to renationalise the lot and tell the EU to take a running jump?

 

[Old Timer]

THe EU does not require de-nationalisation as far as I understand the Directive. What is does require is segregation of accountancy and control between train operations and infrastructure.

The idea is that there is open Access to anyone who wants to operate a train over the EU network.

Of course this was OK for Europe but arrant nonesense for an Island nation like the UK or indeed Ireland !

The issue is that there was no prototype for separation and it was clear that the nationalised railway in the UK could never gain the investment it needed through central Government funding.

The EU has now however taken the UK form of Privatisation as the best model ! and is pushing this hard.

Unfortunately as with everything the EU does it is flawed and imperfect and is totally unsuitable for application throughout.

 

[r/worker angli]

As someone who still works on the maintance side of the industry, all though it may be for a contractor.I find it very alarming and strange that nothing is being brought up on the TV news or newspapers about the alarming drop off in any form of maintance.You may say they( Network Rail) are still maintaining the lines, but as someone who gets to see the WON ( this is where all the parts of the linesthat are handed over to enginerring to under take work, is posted every week ) which covers all East Anglian maintance this publication has dropped in size by about 2/3rds over the last year.
Is it that Network Rail have created such a climate of fear for sub contractors that no one is prepared to speak out!
With out wanting to be accused of being alarmist why are so many people who have worked in the industry for along time say they would not allow there familys to travel on the railway now and if people could see the state of the lines the same as you can see the state of the roads that it would beon the TV in the Newspaers and spoken about in the House of Parliment.

 

[Clip]

The Evergreen stuff is a bit of a grey area for this I think. All of the upgrades have been on a self contained piece of line that 99% of the time only Chiltern takes advantage of.

What do you do for new projects where several TOCs are using it ?? TOC A decides it wants to upgrade a junction and would get most of the benefit of it, does it ask other TOCs to chip in ?? what happens if they pay for it all, TOCs B, C etc... get some benefit for no outlay ?? messy...

True but wasnt Warwick Parkway station built by Chiltern? Though i guess this is mostly about the metals and not stations.

 

[Old Timer]

........Is it that Network Rail have created such a climate of fear for sub contractors that no one is prepared to speak out!......

In-house maintenance has been such a disaster and has increased so much against the IMC regime (with track quality falling) that NR has to cut back something to make the figures fit into the separate world in which they live.

Meanwhile as predicted, the High Output renewals stagger forward rapidly increasing the true costs and actually costing more than conventional methods.

As with everything else however the reality bears no resemblance to the beliefs held at HQ where everything is considered to be running just perfectly. It would be a perfect parody of the Soviet Tractor statistics if only it was not true.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I am impressed, OT, by your quick summary of how infrastructure COULD be better managed (post 20 above).
I have some concerns about it, esp. the regionalism, but don't really feel qualified to comment critically (not without further thought, anyway). But this quoted post illustrates one quite unnecessary aspect of UK rail maintenance that I abhor: PR.

In-house maintenance has been such a disaster and has increased so much against the IMC regime (with track quality falling) that NR has to cut back something to make the figures fit into the separate world in which they live.

. . . .

. . however the reality bears no resemblance to the beliefs held at HQ where everything is considered to be running just perfectly. It would be a perfect parody of the Soviet Tractor statistics if only it was not true.

What we deserve is transparency, accountability and clarity of ownership.
What we get is Press Releases, spin, "announcements" and obfuscation.
That's something we could get rid of at a stroke.
And we'd benefit from its loss.

 

[WatcherZero]

As long as the passenger is a stakeholder any company public or private would have to publicise what it does on their behalf or risk their ire.