MML Electrification: progress updates

[muddythefish]

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...

Management cock-up. Principle is correct

 

[HSTEd]

Management failures like the ones described happen just as often in the private sector as the public sector.
Just the public sector ones end up more public and are less likely to be swept under the carpet.

 

[Chester1]

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...

Obviously we should also scrap HS2 and give all the money to NR too....

The anti northern bias retorhic seems to forget that a great deal of work and money is currently being invested in planning and choosing options for Manchester-Leeds upgrades. The 40 minute journey target is plausible without electrification. The current Victoria-Huddersfield-Leeds journey time is 48-49 minutes. Straightening and four tracking within NR owned land could remove many slow sections and bottle necks to save time and have a robust timetable to make progress while secondary legislation and compulsory purchase orders are obtained for major new infrastructure. The current rumours seem to indicate that Transport for the North is prioritising line speed and capacity improvements over electrification. Electrification could contribute towards the long term 30 minute target instead. As long as the journey time cuts take place I am not too bothered about how they are achieved and in what order.

 

[XDM]

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...

I agree, quite extraordinary how one or two posters here defend NR in the face of all the facts. Every regulator/ enquirer who has reported into it has described it as a failed organisation. Mr Carne has had plenty of time to knock it into shape. He has not been able to. It is just too unwieldy & unanswerable. In the old days the Chief engineers answered to the chairman of British Rail. If the chief engineer of X region of BR let the railway down he was gone.
Under NR the engineers answer to themselves, i.e. No one. The result is overspend,projects delayed & cancelled & routine work improperly done leading to massive signal failures, ac wires down, regularly late hand backs. And of course £ 50 billion on the Network Rail credit card to hang around our children's necks. NR is nationalised. What is needed is for NR to be controlled by the operator,whether public or private TOC.

 

[92002]

Management failures like the ones described happen just as often in the private sector as the public sector.
Just the public sector ones end up more public and are less likely to be swept under the carpet.

What seems to have been missed in all the discussion so far is the system being installed on GWML is re-inventing the wheel again. It is over-engineered and majorly over cost. The chosen system design revolves around multiple pantographs and speeds of 140mph. The last time I checked the systems in France and Germany make use of multiple pantographs and speeds of 190mph. Their design is nothing like what is being installed on GWML and costs nothing like it either.

The lack of signalling cable runs records is totally unacceptable and somebody needs to be found and made accountable for their lack of recordkeeping.

In contrast the designs currently being installed in Scotland and Northern England are to a completely different design and cheaper. This no doubt is what is planned for MML.

Obviously the records in Scotland and Northern England are better, since no problems have been found there. Hopefully records in MML are better too and the electrification can go ahead as planned.

 

[DarloRich]

I agree, quite extraordinary how one or two posters here defend NR in the face of all the facts. Every regulator/ enquirer who has reported into it has described it as a failed organisation. Mr Carne has had plenty of time to knock it into shape. He has not been able to. It is just too unwieldy & unanswerable. In the old days the Chief engineers answered to the chairman of British Rail. If the chief engineer of X region of BR let the railway down he was gone.
Under NR the engineers answer to themselves, i.e. No one. The result is overspend,projects delayed & cancelled & routine work improperly done leading to massive signal failures, ac wires down, regularly late hand backs. And of course £ 50 billion on the Network Rail credit card to hang around our children's necks. NR is nationalised. What is needed is for NR to be controlled by the operator,whether public or private TOC.

I am certainly not blindly defending NR. The failures on GW are as obvious as they are unacceptable. What I am doing is trying to add some context and dismiss the more fruity suggestions of the more fevered posters.

Could you provide a link to one of the many reports classifying NR as a failed organisation. The three most recent reports (Hendy/Bowe & Shaw) all commissioned by the government did not make such a stark declaration. They all made recommendations for change, most of which have been enacted.

NR have taken steps to devolve power and accountability to the regions. In future they will control budget and will work more closely to deliver works that the TOC's & public want. The regional director will be responsible for the performance of those works and will answer for them.

Finally ( and glossing over the rant about regular small scale "failure" - may I refer you to performance improvements on LNW ) I am sure you would love NR to be broken up and given to the TOC's to run gaining them access to even more public money. Of course private ownership of safety never ends badly does it? Nor do private companies ever prioritise dividend over improvement works.

The lack of signalling cable runs records is totally unacceptable and somebody needs to be found and made accountable for their lack of recordkeeping.

Indeed it is unacceptable but to fix it you best fire up the tardis.................

In contrast the designs currently being installed in Scotland and Northern England are to a completely different design and cheaper. This no doubt is what is planned for MML. .

Hopefully a result of implementing lessons learnt from GW.

 

[AndyW33]

The lack of signalling cable runs records is totally unacceptable and somebody needs to be found and made accountable for their lack of recordkeeping.

Yes, it is unacceptable.
There seems to be two possibilities - one is that the cable runs date to the BR period and that practice on the Western Region at the time was not to bother recording it in the first place and not to use the concrete troughing found elsewhere either. If this is so, it is highly likely that whoever made or endorsed the decision is no longer even alive. They certainly won't be still working for the railway.
The other is that this is yet another case of Railtrack failing to retain and maintain records, and where there were no records, failing to ensure that personal knowledge was passed on to the next generation. Now many would think that former Railtrack board members richly deserve being held accountable and penalised, just for existing, but I don't think any of them are still working for the railway either (who'd want them?).

 

[richieb1971]

Surely Mr Carne and co have a success record of sorts? People don't get to high up positions without some sort of CV record to show competence, success and getting value for money.

If the 3rd parties were responsible for bad dealings then why were NR not quick to point the blame. I sure as hell wouldn't take the blame for 3x the budget or anything.

It is sad for me, because I loved the railways (quickly diminishing) and I love my country. And for life of me I can't seem to get any positive news out of our railway modernization plan. I see other countries able to get a success story or two, but the UK seems to scream success for building a curve, let a lone a railway.

As for broken hearts, if you feel about railways like I do. I'd like to live to see the transition between what is and what will be. I know some old people that would like to see it too. They probably won't see it at this rate.

So if NR are going about trying to meet set deadlines, it does matter if they meet them.

 

[coppercapped]

Yes, it is unacceptable.
There seems to be two possibilities - one is that the cable runs date to the BR period and that practice on the Western Region at the time was not to bother recording it in the first place and not to use the concrete troughing found elsewhere either. If this is so, it is highly likely that whoever made or endorsed the decision is no longer even alive. They certainly won't be still working for the railway.
The other is that this is yet another case of Railtrack failing to retain and maintain records, and where there were no records, failing to ensure that personal knowledge was passed on to the next generation. Now many would think that former Railtrack board members richly deserve being held accountable and penalised, just for existing, but I don't think any of them are still working for the railway either (who'd want them?).

It's lucky that some of use have long memories and a pity that the story keeps needing to be repeated.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s a start was made on re-signalling the GW with multiple aspect signals to replace the Semaphores and Searchlight signal used by the real GWR. The cabling was installed in concrete troughs along the route.

Then, as now, there were people who could see their way to a few bob by nicking the signalling cable out of the troughs. It was even easier than pinching the open wire telephone lines as there was no need to climb the poles.

As a quick solution the WR signal engineers ploughed the cables into the ground using a rail mounted thingy. The position was known - the furthest from the track it could be was defined by the working range of the rail mounted thingy.

In the 50 years, repeat 50 years, since then tracks have been realigned and layouts changed. No doubt some of the cables have been moved as well.

NONE OF THIS MATTERED until electrification reared its ugly head some 10 years ago. Only since the decision was made to electrify the line has the position of these cables become important.

It is NOT that the original decision was misguided or wrong - it's just it would have been better to have completed an accurate and complete cable survey before piling for the overhead masts started.

And also, many old records are indicative only. I had occasion to have some work done on the foul and surface water drains from my house some years ago. The water company's records - made in 1920 as the house was built - showed that both drains existed. The snag was they were 6 feet away from the position marked.

So all these posters ranting about incompetent record keeping should keep quiet and give thanks they are not responsible for 500 miles of 175 year old trackside.

 

[Taunton]

The issue is right across the built environment, so it should surely come as no surprise to the engineers. Even where drawings exist, they are commonly taken from the design stage and not updated, accurately or at all, for how things actually get put in the ground.. This particularly applies where the groundwork team encounter some other utility or obstacle not initially shown to them. They are generally pretty good at using their own initiative and getting the job done.

I have heard it said that the drawings that Brunel's team left behind are some of the best still around.

If the 3rd parties were responsible for bad dealings then why were NR not quick to point the blame. I sure as hell wouldn't take the blame for 3x the budget or anything.

I think you can be assured that one thing the contractors cannot have stuck on them is any responsibility for most of the issues. There is a blind concept that contractors are in some way incentivised to work in the best and cheapest manner. The opposite is actually true; the contractor is looking for the route to the maximum of claims and variations on the job, as these are commonly more profitable than the basic, competitively tendered contract work, which may be taken at minimal margin (sometimes even at an apparent loss), knowing full well that it is a route to many variations and ultimate profitability. That is what the contract surveyor is very closely managing. At an extreme, if there is something on the drawings that looks stupid, quick, order the materials and get started on it before the client twigs. Then there's all the variation and extra work to back it all out and start again.

So if the client appears to not have a complete idea, and just provides drawings which say "dig here", that is what the contractor will do. They hit something, work stops, the labour is then standing around being charged to the client at full day rate plus margin while things are sorted out, extra claims for prelims are valid because the job is extended, the ICE contract conditions say they are entitled to Extension of Time, etc. The fact that the rail project gets delayed is completely by the by. The contractor has done exactly what was asked of them and agreed in the contract terms.

Incidentally, some contractors are better (worse) at all this than others. Anyone who has been around the industry for a while will have a league table.

 

[A0]

Management failures like the ones described happen just as often in the private sector as the public sector.
Just the public sector ones end up more public and are less likely to be swept under the carpet.

I disagree - I think the public sector is much more adept at concealing management failings far more so than the private sector.

Look at some of the public sector failings which have been going on for a couple of decades:

- Rochdale child sex abuse - all covered up by management of various public bodies.

- various social services failings.

- Mid Staffs health authority.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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.

TOCs have nothing to do with this , yet you want to put them under the dead hand of the government and Unions ...

yet the one national unified provider is the one you are saying should be shown the door ...

once again proving that facts and logic are alien concepts to the Crayonista and/or Corbynista ...

 

[A0]

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.

Erm - the routes to the west / south west (apart from the short bit from Heathrow - Paddington) have never been electrified where both the ECML and WCML were electrified 20 and 40 years ago.

The only reason the bulk of commuter lines into London were electrified is a direct result of the private rail companies pre-BR: Southern electrified a significant number of its routes into Victoria etc, LNWR electrified from Watford into Euston and Broad Street, LNER planned the electrification into Liverpool St from Shenfield.

 

[Taunton]

The only reason the bulk of commuter lines into London were electrified is a direct result of the private rail companies pre-BR: Southern electrified a significant number of its routes into Victoria etc, LNWR electrified from Watford into Euston and Broad Street, LNER planned the electrification into Liverpool St from Shenfield.

Actually a key driver was the quite sudden drive concerning air quality and smogs, which reached crisis point in London in the early 1950s. Separately to domestic coal fires, etc, locomotive smoke was seen as a major constituent of this. Even after the Shenfield electrification, Stratford still had some 400 steam locomotives and was the largest shed in Britain, the air quality surrounding it was severely impacted. This led to all the additional Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street electrifications. Bricklayers Arms and Stewarts lane were comparable spots in the south, leading to the Kent electrification at the same time. Devons Road, Bow, a freight-only depot at the centre of the worst East End smogs, was immediately chosen for the first BR diesel depot. There was no specific legal requirement, a nudge down from The Cabinet and associated funds from the Treasury was how it was done then.

 

[yorksrob]

TOCs have nothing to do with this , yet you want to put them under the dead hand of the government and Unions ...

yet the one national unified provider is the one you are saying should be shown the door ...

once again proving that facts and logic are alien concepts to the Crayonista and/or Corbynista ...

The individual TOC's might not have been responsible, however there's no doubt that the privatisation fiasco as a whole heralded the end of BR's albeit stop/start programme of electrification, which had been progressing since the early 1980's. With the exception of one short stretch from Crewe to Stoke, that hiatus lasted at least fifteen years.

 

[Ships]

I agree, quite extraordinary how one or two posters here defend NR in the face of all the facts. Every regulator/ enquirer who has reported into it has described it as a failed organisation. Mr Carne has had plenty of time to knock it into shape. He has not been able to. It is just too unwieldy & unanswerable. In the old days the Chief engineers answered to the chairman of British Rail. If the chief engineer of X region of BR let the railway down he was gone.
Under NR the engineers answer to themselves, i.e. No one. The result is overspend,projects delayed & cancelled & routine work improperly done leading to massive signal failures, ac wires down, regularly late hand backs. And of course £ 50 billion on the Network Rail credit card to hang around our children's necks. NR is nationalised. What is needed is for NR to be controlled by the operator,whether public or private TOC.

Please stop making statements when you have zero clue how NR or these projects are run. Thanks.

 

[Ships]

I disagree - I think the public sector is much more adept at concealing management failings far more so than the private sector.

Look at some of the public sector failings which have been going on for a couple of decades:

- Rochdale child sex abuse - all covered up by management of various public bodies.

- various social services failings.

- Mid Staffs health authority.

VW emissions scandal
Banking crisis
Tesco accounting fraud
Etc
Etc
Etc

But don't let facts get in the way of your argument....

 

[YorkshireBear]

Please stop making statements when you have zero clue how NR or these projects are run. Thanks.

I think stopping people posting when they have zero clue would be a dangerous precedent on this forum.

What a particularly love amongst all the froth on this thread is the calls for renationalisation. Network Rail are fully nationalised but are described as failed here.... So which one is it.

 

[ivanhoe]

Please stop making statements when you have zero clue how NR or these projects are run. Thanks.

I think it is easy to assume that the GW Electrification Project has not been one of NR's success story's even if one is not privy to the machinations of NR like your goodself. ( I'm guessing like)

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think it is easy to assume that the GW Electrification Project has not been one of NR's success story's even if one is not privy to the machinations of NR like your goodself. ( I'm guessing like)

That is a failing project. Not a failed organisation.

 

[ivanhoe]

That is a failing project. Not a failed organisation.

Agreed, but a failing Project of the scope and size is indicative of something that all is not too well within the organisation. It may well be learning lessons and responding. It's in everybody's interest to have a thriving NR.

 

[A0]

The individual TOC's might not have been responsible, however there's no doubt that the privatisation fiasco as a whole heralded the end of BR's albeit stop/start programme of electrification, which had been progressing since the early 1980's. With the exception of one short stretch from Crewe to Stoke, that hiatus lasted at least fifteen years.

In the mid / late 90s there was less justification for the electrification of either the GWML or the MML.

The GWML was running new (1991) rolling stock on all of its suburban services from Reading / Newbury and Oxford. Further west the Sprinters weren't much older. That left the HSTs as the oldest stock on the GWML and nowhere near life-expired.

In the case of the MML - people seem to be forgetting quite what a cinderella line that was north of Bedford. BR were running slowish trains with various stopping patterns. It was Midland Mainline who took the initiative and introduced additional 'stopping' services and sped up the longer-distance services. OK the Turbostars perhaps weren't the right stock for that, but it was available and proved the point that the demand was there for those services - hence the Meridians were ordered.

BR had little interest in electrifying the MML to Leicester and beyond.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Agreed, but a failing Project of the scope and size is indicative of something that all is not too well within the organisation. It may well be learning lessons and responding. It's in everybody's interest to have a thriving NR.

And of course major enhancements is actually a very small portion of what Network Rail do day to day despite taking most money.

I am not defending NR, but some functions of NR are doing better and really improving so GWRM should not be used to tarnish everyone with the same brush.

 

[doa46231]

I think stopping people posting when they have zero clue would be a dangerous precedent on this forum.

What a particularly love amongst all the froth on this thread is the calls for renationalisation. Network Rail are fully nationalised but are described as failed here.... So which one is it.

But why was it nationalised, by the Tories of all people?
Because the private sector made such a pigs ear of it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

But why was it nationalised, by the Tories of all people?
Because the private sector made such a pigs ear of it.

Except no that isn't even nearly what happened.

Network Rail was effectively nationalised in 2003 at the collapse of railtrack by the Labour Government (private sector screw up). I say effectively as although it was still classed as private it was only done so through some clever accountancy and other financial stuff I don't understand. This was to keep the Credit Card open for as long as possible.

Then the EU told the government to formally nationalise it as the government was effectively funding it and guaranteeing the debt.

 

[DarloRich]

Except no that isn't even nearly what happened.

Network Rail was effectively nationalised in 2003 at the collapse of railtrack by the Labour Government (private sector screw up). I say effectively as although it was still classed as private it was only done so through some clever accountancy and other financial stuff I don't understand. This was to keep the Credit Card open for as long as possible.

Then the EU told the government to formally nationalise it as the government was effectively funding it and guaranteeing the debt.

technically NR hasn't ever been nationalized - it was set up as a not for dividend company which purchased Railtrack for £500m and is now an arms length public body of the Department for Transport with no shareholders.

All semantics of course..............

 

[XDM]

technically NR hasn't ever been nationalized - it was set up as a not for dividend company which purchased Railtrack for £500m and is now an arms length public body of the Department for Transport with no shareholders.

All semantics of course..............

The fact that NR is publically owned rather than private is not the cause of its depressing endless failures. It is because the engineers are in charge & they only answer to themselves. If they were employed by & answered to their individual Tocs or as they did in BR days to the Board & Chairman of BR they would be hauled over the coals for their terrible failings. According to old BR hands, BR chairmen Peter Parker & the superb Bob Reid, Mark 1, each moved sideways regional chief engineers who consistently let the side down & did one tenth the damage Network Rail now regularly does to the railway,its business & its reputation. You have to reunite trains & track, with the operators in charge. I am told Grayling was seriously considering that until Mrs May derailed her majority. The main issue is not public or private but putting the operators in charge. At present NR is the de facto boss. It is like a restaurant being run by the man who maintains the cooker & fridge.

 

[YorkshireBear]

technically NR hasn't ever been nationalized - it was set up as a not for dividend company which purchased Railtrack for £500m and is now an arms length public body of the Department for Transport with no shareholders.

All semantics of course..............

Quite, I couldn't think of the exact terminology. Thanks for correcting.

All concepts beyond the mind of a simple engineer unfortunately!

 

[DarloRich]

Quite, I couldn't think of the exact terminology. Thanks for correcting.

All concepts beyond the mind of a simple engineer unfortunately!

we best not consider the concept of "railway administration" ala Railtrack - that is beyond ALL of us!

 

[IanXC]

Then the EU told the government to formally nationalise it as the government was effectively funding it and guaranteeing the debt.

I know everyone loves an EU rant, but wasn't this actually the Office of National Statistics? Given the compliance we see elsewhere this amounted to another good old UK gold plating exercise as far as I could see...