Limited Governement Thinking.

[lancastrian]

I was reading in the Jan 2011 issue of Modern railways. There was an excellent article about the Ebbw Vale line. They were talking about what plans that were being considered for the next few years. Amongst these was the extension of the dynamic loop northwards from Cross Keys to Aberbeeg, to where the new line to Abertillery would diverge. Plus addition double tracking would be needed at the Newport end of the line if the service was increased up to 4tph.

If my memory serves me right, orginally the double track section was intened to be at least 3 times longer than it was built as, plus stations at Aberbeeg, Crumlin & Pye Courner, all now under serious consdieration, were discounted due to cost. Also the platforms were only built for 4 car trains, it mentioned that it is likely that they will all have to be extended to 6 car very soon, due to the demand.

It seems to me that we have been here before, for example the Aberdare branch was reopened on the cheap. It was planned to build the platforms on it for 4 car, but to save money they were only built as 2 car. They have needed to be extended twice up to 4 car and now I believe up to 6 car, again due to demand.

Also further platform extensions and re-double tracking has taken place over the Cardiff Valeys lines over the last few years.

Do our elected representatives ever listen to those with experience. They 'save money' when thing are built, then they have to spend even more to upgrade the facilities up to where they should have been built to in the first place. Cost often 4/5 times more than the orginal savings.

What do you all think.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I can sympathise with the idea that money saved now can be a hindrance later on.

That said, in the planners' favour, a lot of these projects seem to live or die on their initial cost, so for me, it's better that they go ahead albeit in a cheaper version than not at all.

What I think is important is that such projects are planned in such a way that the improvements can be put in later if needs be. I think that the recent discussion about Salford Crescent is particularly pertinent. Originally planned with two island platforms, the station was built on the cheap with just one. This would have been perfectly acceptable except for the fact that the space for the second island platform was subsequently sold off and built on making it much more difficult and expensive to insert the extra platforms later.

 

[tbtc]

Its a lot cheaper in the long run to build things right first time, which is one reason I hope we do HS2 properly (because it becomes a lot more complicated and expensive to try to extend things at a later date).

However, I can understand people being careful about the scale they built new projects - building stations on a new branch to cope with six coaches is a little optimistic - not every railway project is going to be a bigger than expected success - some people are taking the Alloa line as evidence that every new line will attract twice as many passengers as expected.

 

[Old Timer]

As Yorksrob has stated the initial build price can be tight and not everything can be built with potential expansion in mind.

For example the costs of providing facilities or equipment for two track running within the signalling may probit the scheme going ahead in the first place.

The installation of wiring and signalling circuits that are not used do not represent a saving because they may well deteriorate at the same or at an increased rate to those in regular use.

Unused equipment will require to be used (somehow) otherwise it will eventually bocome non-operational and will require replacement, which was hardly the point in the first place.

Building relay rooms and TSCs to a bigger size to facilitate expansion bring with it a dramatic increase in the air space that has to be heated and temperature controlled.

Installing a wider formation increases both maintenance and renewal costs and saves nothing as an unused formation does fail eventually.

Dramatic savings can be made by having "standard" stations such as used abroad, however I am afraid it is very much a case of the "not invented here" syndrome that affects the UK. Also our ever present cultural values which are now swayed towards claiming compensation for every little thing increases costs as station designers seek to root out all areas and aspects where claims could arise.

Similarly crazy structural and build requirements, together with extended and never-ending legal liabilities conspire to make everyone so safety conscious and paranoid that we have safety value put on safety value and thus we end up with signals which now have bases which could support a tower block !

 

[lancastrian]

Yes, I can sympathise with the idea that money saved now can be a hindrance later on.

That said, in the planners' favour, a lot of these projects seem to live or die on their initial cost, so for me, it's better that they go ahead albeit in a cheaper version than not at all.

What I think is important is that such projects are planned in such a way that the improvements can be put in later if needs be. I think that the recent discussion about Salford Crescent is particularly pertinent. Originally planned with two island platforms, the station was built on the cheap with just one. This would have been perfectly acceptable except for the fact that the space for the second island platform was subsequently sold off and built on making it much more difficult and expensive to insert the extra platforms later.

I agree that it is much better that we do things right the first time, plus you are right it is better that lines are reopened than not, but my point is that the supposed 'savings' are not such, simply because when you need to upgrade the reopening, which is usually sooner rather than later, you need to spend, often 3/4 times as much as you would have spent in the first instance.

You are quite right about Salford Crescent, it was done on the ultra cheap, and as you say, land around it was sold off, making it almost impossible to put a second island platform in at that location (see my comments on the Salford Crescent thread).

However, I can understand people being careful about the scale they built new projects - building stations on a new branch to cope with six coaches is a little optimistic - not every railway project is going to be a bigger than expected success - some people are taking the Alloa line as evidence that every new line will attract twice as many passengers as expected.

I was not saying to build 6 car length platforms from the start, although it would make sense especially on commuter lines like Ebbw Vale, but to use common sense, and at least build them 4 car length to start with, not 2 car.

Both the Aberdare & Ebbw Vale Lines have exceded passenger growth, far quicker than projected. In fact apart from the Sinfin Branch in Derby, as afar as I am aware, every reopening has exceded paasenger growth projections. Just another case of those supposed experts not really looking at all the eviedence.

Dramatic savings can be made by having "standard" stations such as used abroad, however I am afraid it is very much a case of the "not invented here" syndrome that affects the UK. Also our ever present cultural values which are now swayed towards claiming compensation for every little thing increases costs as station designers seek to root out all areas and aspects where claims could arise.

It was not long ago that I read somewhere that a 'prefab' station was opened here in Britain, so there are some epople who are considering the rediculous costs of building a new station. But the seemed to manage it quite well and cheaply with Workington North.

What we need is for our Governement to seriously look at the Health and Safety requirement and to apply both a heavy dose of common sense to it along with a sharp knife to some of the more rediculous parts of it.

If we are part of the EU, then I would expect that we could import some of the continents ways of building, maintainance and renewal systems. Especially as ours seem to cost more than 2/3 times the cost of doing things in Europe.

 

[merlodlliw]

You all make interesting points, I have studied the line, its funding,its politics.

Due to Trish Law becoming the independent Assembly Member for Ebbw Vale, who knocked out Labour, the then Welsh Assembly Govt, under a Labour stewardship & for political reasons wished to make a point, this was to draw down Euro objective one funding via WEFO, to make the line passenger,using two coach DMUs,against all the advice of the local member & experts it went ahead urgent to score a political point. The scheme was rushed, any available funding s diverted.

In fairness to Trish Law,who said in the WAG, the current scheme should be taken to Ebbw Vale itself from Newport, have stations on the line and better capacity. Yet the £Ms were spent taking it to Cardiff first without any extra capacity other than two coach DMUs. A full scale whip was placed on every Labour A,M. to vote in the scheme, against advices from experts & locals & more surprisingly to vote in favour of the Cardiff route against any plans for their own areas, the local A.M from Clwyd South did just that, voting against Euro funding for the reconstruction bays at Wrexham General, but voting for the entire available funding to go on the Cardiff to Ebbw Vale line.

Anyhow the Ebbw Vale line is a success,but there is no more money to increase any capacity in the foreseeable future, which is so typical of statutory organisations thinking.

Political points remain with us, Wagair is an example £1.6m a year to fly a small aircraft to Cardiff from Anglesey,contracted for 4 years.
So busy it is closed down for two weeks from Dec 23rd to 4th January,yet funded for this period not to fly And nothing to do with weather as a reason.

As is the situation when politicians get involved, in the 19th century all rail lines went to London, in the 21st century in Wales all lines must go to Cardiff.

Happy New Year whatever your political colour.

 

[yorksrob]

You all make interesting points,I and studied the line, its funding,its politics.

Due to Trish Law becoming the independent Assembly Member for Ebbw Vale, who knocked out Labour, the then Welsh Assembly Govt, under a Labour stewardship & for political reasons wished to make a point, this was to draw down Euro objective one funding via WEFO, to make the line passenger,using two coach DMUs,against all the advice of the local member & experts it went ahead urgent to score a political point. The scheme was rushed, any available funding s diverted.

In fairness to Trish Law,who said in the WAG, the current scheme should be taken to Ebbw Vale itself from Newport, have stations on the line and better capacity. Yet the £Ms were spent taking it to Cardiff first without any extra capacity other than two coach DMUs. A full scale whip was placed on every Labour A,M. to vote in the scheme, against advices from experts & locals & more surprisingly to vote in favour of the Cardiff route against any plans for their own areas, the local A.M from Clwyd South did just that, voting against Euro funding for the reconstruction bays at Wrexham General, but voting for the entire available funding to go on the Cardiff to Ebbw Vale line.

Anyhow the Ebbw Vale line is a success,but there is no more money to increase any capacity in the foreseeable future, which is so typical of statutory organisations thinking.

Political points remain with us, Wagair is an example £1.6m a year to fly a small aircraft to Cardiff from Anglesey,contracted for 4 years.
So busy it is closed down for two weeks from Dec 23rd to 4th January,yet funded for this period not to fly And nothing to do with weather as a reason.

As is the situation when politicians get involved, in the 19th century all rail lines went to London, in the 21st century in Wales all lines must go to Cardiff.

Happy New Year whatever your political colour.

Many thanks for the interesting background information.

I think when you compare it with the woeful situation in England over the past decade it just goes to show how vital any political support for re-openings is.

Out of interest, what would have been the likely outcome if the Cardiff scheme hadn't been pushed through. Would the line have been re-opened to Newport with a different source of funding?

 

[lancastrian]

As is the situation when politicians get involved, in the 19th century all rail lines went to London, in the 21st century in Wales all lines must go to Cardiff.

I must agree with you 'merlodlliw', thing always get messed up when Politicians get involved with anything. I found what you said very interesting, yet sadly so unsuprising.

Aren't the benefits of devolution extremly wonderful.

 

[merlodlliw]

Many thanks for the interesting background information.

I think when you compare it with the woeful situation in England over the past decade it just goes to show how vital any political support for re-openings is.

Out of interest, what would have been the likely outcome if the Cardiff scheme hadn't been pushed through. Would the line have been re-opened to Newport with a different source of funding?

The could well have been reopened to Newport,with the same funding stream,as Newport was Objective One, The reason for taking the service to Cardiff in the first place was Political, the then First Minister Rhod Morgan was intent on stamping his Mark, Newport although under Labour control would not make the same impression,In my opinion had Ebbw Vale returned a Labour A.M
or for that matter M.P at the time, the story would be different.

The then Labour M.P Peter Law through all his weight into getting the 16 mile line to Newport opened,which he had wanted long before becoming elected the M.P for Ebbw Vale, however Peter was a people person,not a party line M.P which did not suit certain Labour Ministers, the Labour party made the mistake of deselecting him, so he stood as an Independent and won.
With £millions of Euro steel regeneration money slushing around, this was used
to score the political point, Cardiff shall say where the line shall go and in a sad knock to the electors of Ebbw Vale it was not their choice of Newport,but Cardiff, Even when Peter Law died,the vendetta continued.

 

[yorksrob]

The could well have been reopened to Newport,with the same funding stream,as Newport was Objective One, The reason for taking the service to Cardiff in the first place was Political, the then First Minister Rhod Morgan was intent on stamping his Mark, Newport although under Labour control would not make the same impression,In my opinion had Ebbw Vale returned a Labour A.M
or for that matter M.P at the time, the story would be different.

The then Labour M.P Peter Law through all his weight into getting the 16 mile line to Newport opened,which he had wanted long before becoming elected the M.P for Ebbw Vale, however Peter was a people person,not a party line M.P which did not suit certain Labour Ministers, the Labour party made the mistake of deselecting him, so he stood as an Independent and won.
With £millions of Euro steel regeneration money slushing around, this was used
to score the political point, Cardiff shall say where the line shall go and in a sad knock to the electors of Ebbw Vale it was not their choice of Newport,but Cardiff, Even when Peter Law died,the vendetta continued.

I suppose it just goes to show that it's impossible to take politics out of the railway altogether. Hopefully the Newport link can be put in in the future.

 

[krus_aragon]

I suppose it just goes to show that it's impossible to take politics out of the railway altogether. Hopefully the Newport link can be put in in the future.

The link itself (Gaer Jn) has been reinstated as part of the signalling renewal, and if it hasn't been commissioned yet then it's easy enough to do so. The problem is that there isn't room on the branch line for a second hourly service without further redoubling or passing places.

 

[merlodlliw]

The link itself (Gaer Jn) has been reinstated as part of the signalling renewal, and if it hasn't been commissioned yet then it's easy enough to do so. The problem is that there isn't room on the branch line for a second hourly service without further redoubling or passing places.

And it would appear, no funds to redouble the passing places,if WAG found the money,it would be diverted by creative accounting to other silly ideas that Ministers of this devolved Govt are so expert at. I now await an announcement of a WAG ferry to ply between Holyhead and Cardiff Bay, as the idea of a sleeping car on the WAG Express seems to have been shelved for now.

 

[The Planner]

The link from Gaer up to Parc junction has always been there.

 

[route:oxford]

the idea of a sleeping car on the WAG Express seems to have been shelved for now.

No politician would be stupid enough to arrange "day-beds" on the WAG surely?

It would end up being a state-subsidised brothel.

 

[merlodlliw]

No politician would be stupid enough to arrange "day-beds" on the WAG surely?

It would end up being a state-subsidised brothel.

The Ministers staff,had floated with the idea of a sleeper been attached for the 5.30a.m. departure to Cardiff, so the Politicians that did not fly, could arrive refreshed, then returned empty on the afternoon WAG back to Holyhead.
This idea was actually discussed with ATW. As for the SSB, no politician would have a mistress would they?