MML Electrification: progress updates

[hwl]

It's difficult for NR to escape the charge of incompetence.
Who else is going to produce an informed estimate of electrification costs on its property? If they can't do it they should get out of the kitchen.
The DfT and Treasury will be wild that they have been embarrassed (yet again) by the railways' cost structure.
You only have to look at NR's Electrification RUS (2009) to see where the low costings came from - they even said there was scope to reduce them!
They probably want to disown it now.

From what I understand all the problematic costings are the result of the early stage costing being outsourced to a particular 3rd party firm. Said firm is no longer on NR'S approved list...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From what I understand all the problematic costings are the result of the early stage costing being outsourced to a particular 3rd party firm. Said firm is no longer on NR'S approved list...

Well, it just shows you shouldn't entrust your strategic future to a set of consultants.
There are some big names tied up in this too, like Windhoff and Furrer & Frey.
But NR (with ORR) has to carry the can, as it was in charge of the process.

The person who recommended contracting the job to DB had a point.
They and their contractors have wired countless miles of OHLE (plus resignalling and major remodelling) in recent years (in addition to the extensive NBS builds).
Similar picture in Austria and France and elsewhere.
What do they know that we don't?

 

[Senex]

The person who recommended contracting the job to DB had a point.
They and their contractors have wired countless miles of OHLE (plus resignalling and major remodelling) in recent years (in addition to the extensive NBS builds).
Similar picture in Austria and France and elsewhere.
What do they know that we don't?

You forget that Britain is different and anything that as been proved on the continent cannot be used here until it has been all the way through a very thorough acceptance programme to make sure that it really can meet our very special circumstances. We have a very long history of trying to re-invent the wheel whenever we can and thus pushing up costs enormously (except when it comes to buying nuclear missiles, of course).

DB has certainly had its problems with some of the recent major modernisations, but those have been connected mainly with the slab-track they now go in for. They seem just to be able to get on with electrification and re-signalling without any great problems at all. And the French and the Spanish (and even the Italians) have good recent experience of building high-speed lines. Should we perhaps contract out management and construction of the entire HS2 project to one of our European neighbours?

 

[DarloRich]

The person who recommended contracting the job to DB had a point.
They and their contractors have wired countless miles of OHLE (plus resignalling and major remodelling) in recent years (in addition to the extensive NBS builds).
Similar picture in Austria and France and elsewhere.
What do they know that we don't?

A completely different regulatory, legal and operational framework for a start...............

You forget that Britain is different and anything that as been proved on the continent cannot be used here until it has been all the way through a very thorough acceptance programme to make sure that it really can meet our very special circumstances. We have a very long history of trying to re-invent the wheel whenever we can and thus pushing up costs enormously (except when it comes to buying nuclear missiles, of course).

We do - but see the point about a different regulatory framework.

DB has certainly had its problems with some of the recent major modernisations, but those have been connected mainly with the slab-track they now go in for. They seem just to be able to get on with electrification and re-signalling without any great problems at all. And the French and the Spanish (and even the Italians) have good recent experience of building high-speed lines. Should we perhaps contract out management and construction of the entire HS2 project to one of our European neighbours?

A JV seems an obvious vehicle for that work.

 

[HSTEd]

Introducing a totally new way of doing things chasing savings is an inherently dangerous thing to do.
They would have to tear up the operational framework and rebuild it

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Hopefully this works


EDIT --- I meant to post this in another thread -but I will leave it here anyway.

 

[snowball]

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way - apologies to Pink Floyd

But they perhaps based it on the American, Henry David Thoreau: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."

 

[Mordac]

Hopefully this works

It does work, but I'm not sure why you posted it here.

 

[Chester1]

I doubt The Times article is accurate it reads like a classic doom mongering whinge about th railways newspaper article. In reality:

A) the northern electrification has been postponed but the 40 minute journey time between Leeds and Manchester remains with line speed improvements and a new alignment the likely new solution.

B) There was already no date for electrifying Kettering to Sheffield. Wiring to Kettering but not Corby doesn't make sense.

C) the non core parts or the GWML project have already been indefinitely delayed

My reading of the situation is that once Preston to Blackpool North and Manchester Victoria eastern approaches and crossovers are wired in May 2018 the people on the North West team will transfer to MML or GWML to make sure Cardiff and Corby are wired by end of 2019. There are small cheaper line speed improvements that can be made between Manchester to Leeds until 2020. Id doubt there is much of a plan yet from 2020 onwards.

 

[richieb1971]

I doubt The Times article is accurate it reads like a classic doom mongering whinge about th railways newspaper article. In reality:

A) the northern electrification has been postponed but the 40 minute journey time between Leeds and Manchester remains with line speed improvements and a new alignment the likely new solution.

B) There was already no date for electrifying Kettering to Sheffield. Wiring to Kettering but not Corby doesn't make sense.

C) the non core parts or the GWML project have already been indefinitely delayed

My reading of the situation is that once Preston to Blackpool North and Manchester Victoria eastern approaches and crossovers are wired in May 2018 the people on the North West team will transfer to MML or GWML to make sure Cardiff and Corby are wired by end of 2019. There are small cheaper line speed improvements that can be made between Manchester to Leeds until 2020. Id doubt there is much of a plan yet from 2020 onwards.

But are the GWR and MML worth the cost of admittance?

NR got this work by default because they are to be assumed to be the best qualified staff to do the OHLE work. But others have suggested since that perhaps 3rd parties might have been a better option. Whilst people like Darlorich will defend network rail, I would say if they continue to practice their trade in OHLE they should always triple the budget before submitting it to the government and any 3rd parties try to undercut that figure. Any savings made thereafter are appreciated.

But in the meantime it is hoped by me that NR learnt some lessons.

 

[edwin_m]

Amidst all this turmoil I don't think I've seen any indication of how the costs on MML electrification are stacking up against the budget. Is it possible that the problems such as unknown cable positions are more severe on GWML?

 

[snowball]

Amidst all this turmoil I don't think I've seen any indication of how the costs on MML electrification are stacking up against the budget. Is it possible that the problems such as unknown cable positions are more severe on GWML?

I haven't seen any suggestion of the unknown cable positions problem occurring anywhere except on GW. Doesn't most of the country use unburied cable channels?

 

[DarloRich]

But are the GWR and MML worth the cost of admittance?

NR got this work by default because they are to be assumed to be the best qualified staff to do the OHLE work. But others have suggested since that perhaps 3rd parties might have been a better option. Whilst people like Darlorich will defend network rail, I would say if they continue to practice their trade in OHLE they should always triple the budget before submitting it to the government and any 3rd parties try to undercut that figure. Any savings made thereafter are appreciated.

But in the meantime it is hoped by me that NR learnt some lessons.

I am sorry to sound like a broken record but you and others seem incapable of grasping some very simple concepts:

• From where will the undercutting third party draw their labour? One of the key issues was (and remains) the lack of skilled and experienced people in the UK supply chain.
  
• You do understand that many of these wonderful undercutting third parties are the same people doing the job now don't you?
  
• The undercutting third parties will still face the same constraints & challenges of access and time on the live infrastructure that NR face.
  
• The undercutting third parties will still have to work within the fractured nature of the UK rail network and within the UK regulatory framework.
  
• The cost changes when the specification changes ( which it will especially with the government doing the specifying) will be higher with a third party due to the more defined contractual relationship such an arrangement will require
  
• The risk transfer to the undercutting third party wont be as easy and seamless as you seem to think and when they have had enough, or that risk transfer is costing them to much or they don't think the profit margin is high enough they will bail - see NW electrification.

and so it goes on - it isnt as straight forward as your simple view suggests .

 

[DarloRich]

I haven't seen any suggestion of the unknown cable positions problem occurring anywhere except on GW. Doesn't most of the country use unburied cable channels?

They do ( and they do on Western) but it was found the cables weren't always where they should have been or were simply not marked on any plans.

Amidst all this turmoil I don't think I've seen any indication of how the costs on MML electrification are stacking up against the budget. Is it possible that the problems such as unknown cable positions are more severe on GWML?

The cable issue shouldn't be as bad but they have their own challenges on MML with legacy structures that need upgrading.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Everyone but everyone has some blame in this whole thing. Governments of all shades for allowing the skills base to lapse by doing no electrification for a generation. Governments for getting overexcited about a quick win and being crayonistas. NR being so grateful for getting electrification after so many years they were frightened of saying no. DfT and ORR for interfering too much and changing specs etc. The old BR for not keeping better records. Failtrack for well - failing. There are others but I will leave it at that. Nice and slow and steady is the way forward not mad rush.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Amidst all this turmoil I don't think I've seen any indication of how the costs on MML electrification are stacking up against the budget. Is it possible that the problems such as unknown cable positions are more severe on GWML?

I think the practical position is that the MML electrification budget (and TP and much else) has been spent on the GW scheme, and NR cannot create new money for it in CP5, even if its design and costs are viable.

NR had agreed at least 4 framework agreements with electrification contractors on a regional basis, with extensive recruitment and training set up for the various teams.
They are gong to be mighty peeved with NR if the anticipated long-term workload evaporates.

 

[DarloRich]

I think the practical position is that the MML electrification budget (and TP and much else) has been spent on the GW scheme, and NR cannot create new money for it in CP5, even if its design and costs are viable.

NR had agreed at least 4 framework agreements with electrification contractors on a regional basis, with extensive recruitment and training set up for the various teams.
They are gong to be mighty peeved with NR if the anticipated long-term workload evaporates.

the CP6 determination will be all important

 

[edwin_m]

I think the practical position is that the MML electrification budget (and TP and much else) has been spent on the GW scheme, and NR cannot create new money for it in CP5, even if its design and costs are viable.

As far as I know, no actual poles or wires have gone up on MML yet, and I think that's when the trouble really started on the GWML, so it's possible MML will have the same sort of problem. However from observation almost all the bridges on Bedford-Kettering have been re-built, along with some further north. It would be unfortunate if the whole scheme was cancelled but a real shame if at least Bedford-Corby didn't go ahead. Outturn costs on this section might give a bit of an indication of whether the GWML and NW problems were either unique to those schemes or have been solved by better working methods.

Otherwise we'll just be left in the position where the last electrification cost three (or whatever) times more than anybody thought, so nobody authorises any more and there's no chance to show how the costs might in fact be lower now as people climb the learning curve. Only to fall back down of course if there isn't any follow-on work.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The cable issue shouldn't be as bad but they have their own challenges on MML with legacy structures that need upgrading.

However at least Network Rail are aware of those unlike the buried signalling cables on the GWML and should be able to accurately cost the alterations.

What I don't understand is why by all accounts the original price for MML electrification didn't include the cost of upgrading the wires between Bedford and London.

 

[Taunton]

I still haven't seen any description or analysis of WHY the current electrification projects have gone so far over budget. Is it the work content has increased (and why), or the price paid for the items has increased (and why), etc.

On large projects, it's rarely that all the items inflate equally. Many will come in as estimated, it will only be certain ones that go out of control. Which ones are these.

All the "clever" (and expensive) innovations, like the high output train, or the overhead design, seem to have cost way more that traditional methods and delivered little if any benefit. Some of them really came over as an engineer's ego trip (or the engineering salesman's route to a sale regardless).

I recall time and again on the GW main line to Reading a couple of years ago being delayed because the signalling had failed as a result of the electrification works. I would have thought that once, or twice, this had happened the engineers would identify the issue and a solution. Instead it just kept happening, again and again. The same, I understand, occurred with late handover of possessions from operating to contractor, happened again and again.

Someone can maybe look at the commercial relationship with the contractors, who seem to have constantly had people in place when things had gone wrong, clocking up the cost and all standing around.

 

[snowball]

I haven't seen any suggestion of the unknown cable positions problem occurring anywhere except on GW. Doesn't most of the country use unburied cable channels?

They do ( and they do on Western) but it was found the cables weren't always where they should have been or were simply not marked on any plans.

If the cable is in a concrete channel and the channel is not buried then surely you can just see it.

 

[DarloRich]

If the cable is in a concrete channel and the channel is not buried then surely you can just see it.

It is the cable you cant see that is the problem!

 

[edwin_m]

If the cable is in a concrete channel and the channel is not buried then surely you can just see it.

Probably so, but if the person seeing it is the person who's about to dig the hole then the probably can't just dig the hole somewhere else, unless the designers are sufficiently flexible that they can change the design to allow for it before the stage of attaching the boom or small steelwork. Not as bad as hitting a signalling cable (and the same problem arises if you find a signalling cable in your trial hole) but nonetheless a big problem if it happens any more than occasionally.

For what it's worth I think the problems are (mostly discussed already):
- Rapid DfT go-ahead for schemes based on back-of-envelope estimates by people who didn't really have enough experience of what has gone wrong in the past. The likely reasons for missing the upgrades south of Bedford.
- Not doing the re-signalling before the electrification, suggesting probably that the unrealistic dates as well as the budgets were agreed. If the cables had gone out of use with new signalling then hitting them wouldn't matter. I think there's still quite a bit of 1980s signalling equipment between Sharnbrook and Loughborough, which may come to bite somebody at some point.
- Prioritising schemes based on a rolling stock cascade which in turn was based on the assumption new DMUs would be unavailable or at the least unecomic. This led GWML (releasing lots of commuter/regional DMUs) to have priority over MML (releasing almost none, only Meridians with no obvious role elsewhere). When schemes slipped back most of the new DMUs had to be bought anyway to maintain services in the absence of the cascaded units.
- Inability of the various industry bodies to monitor and challenge emerging standards.

The above are all really down to government making a total change of direction, over a short period spanning the end of Labour and the start of Coalition. The previous policy resulted in lack of electrification experience in the industry, and the later one demanded far too much from it.

The real question is how to get out of this. Hence why I think Bedford to Corby should continue with NR very much in the last chance saloon, along with a thorough independent report (not just one person's opinions like the Gibb report) into what went wrong, how the different teams and schemes did things differently and what would happen if best practice was taken up everywhere. Specifying bi-modes for MML, either just HST replacement and a small growth build or perhaps to replace Meridians too, would give flexibility for the next franchise or the one after that to take advantage of any electrificaiton as it was compmleted. I've suggested on another thread that the alternative of buying 125mph DMUs isn't realistic anyway.

 

[muddythefish]

From The Times

So the south and west schemes go ahead while the midlands and northern ones get shoved in the bin.

What a surprise - and people wonder why there's so much inequality in this country.

On another note, time to put the whole railway back together and renationalise it. It's clear splitting it up into so many parts has been a colossal waste of money.

And after so many cock-ups NR's management should be shown the door too.

 

[Ploughman]

I seem to recall that in one incident, after CAT scanning and hand digging down to about 4ft and careful light machine digging down another 4 - 5 ft had revealed nothing. So a heavy machine was then brought in and dug down deeper, Why I do not know, but at about 15ft down a cable run was cut through that was not recorded but was still live.

How do you cater for that?

 

[Domh245]

All the "clever" (and expensive) innovations, like the high output train, or the overhead design, seem to have cost way more that traditional methods and delivered little if any benefit. Some of them really came over as an engineer's ego trip (or the engineering salesman's route to a sale regardless).

HOPS was a bit of a failure, but most of the clever innovations with the OLE design are to do with day to day running and maintenance, the only construction related innovation that I can think of is the reduction of components to allow for quicker installation, which does seem to have worked. It's a bit unfair to judge the how effective the design has been when it has yet to be used in anger

I recall time and again on the GW main line to Reading a couple of years ago being delayed because the signalling had failed as a result of the electrification works. I would have thought that once, or twice, this had happened the engineers would identify the issue and a solution. Instead it just kept happening, again and again. The same, I understand, occurred with late handover of possessions from operating to contractor, happened again and again.

I believe this was related to the whole buried cable fiasco that is well detailed everywhere. You can't really fix cables not being where they should be without hand digging piles, which is what they had to resort to in the end

 

[Kettledrum]

Network Rail should have told the government when the GWML and MML projects were announced to not even think about electrifying the MML until the wires had at least reached Cardiff.

No - Network ail should have told the government when the GWML and MML projects were announced, not to even think about electrifying the GWML until the wires had reached Sheffield.

 

[Taunton]

You can't really fix cables not being where they should be without hand digging piles, which is what they had to resort to in the end

Exactly. And they should have realised that was what needed doing a lot sooner. Some engineers are just over the top at getting their hands on expensive plant. And hand digging pile holes didn't cause the entire project budget to be exceeded by 200%. I can almost envisage a hand-dig subcontractor coming in with a quote no more expensive than the HOPS hoopla.

I also find it a bit beyond belief that S&T didn't know where their cables, very roughly, were, or how to locate them in a less disruptive manner. However do they trace cable faults.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think there are more issues than those above.
We seem to have had a gold-plating of the Series 1 spec (140mph with multiple pantographs etc), leading to a very heavy design.
The question of approvals for reconstruction of any heritage assets (bridges etc) was costly and time-consuming, and the GW is full of them.
The piling system would not work as designed with the size of the piles used, and the piles themselves were not optimised for the ground conditions.
Plus the resignalling problems etc etc.
So in fact almost every area was underestimated.
The Select Committee covered all this in its report.

DfT and ORR were certainly complicit (even if they did not realise it at the time) in overspecifying the project.
And I'll just mention that after nearly a year's testing, IEPs do not yet have approval to run under Series 1 wiring and power supplies.
ETCS is yet to come, at least between Paddington and Reading.

MML wiring was said to be going to be a hybrid of Series 1 and Series 2, and is not being sized for 140mph, so should not have the same over-spec problems.

 

[Mordac]

So the south and west schemes go ahead while the midlands and northern ones get shoved in the bin.

What a surprise - and people wonder why there's so much inequality in this country.

On another note, time to put the whole railway back together and renationalise it. It's clear splitting it up into so many parts has been a colossal waste of money.

And after so many cock-ups NR's management should be shown the door too.

So after the nationalised network rail makes a major cock up and wastes tons of money, your conclusion is that we need more nationalisation? One could be forgiven for thinking you'd conclude that regardless of the outcome...