Network Rail upgrade delayed by government (BBC News Article)

[The Planner]

3 minutes is nothing on a 90 minute journey.

I'd love to see (knowing exactly what it would be...) the reaction of Virgin, Cross Country and a couple of others if you said that.

 

[Kneedown]

That is a misleading statement. The 7:24 from Leeds is a HST that stops at 8 stations after Sheffield, the 7:29 is a 222 which calls at 4 - Journey time is longer on the HST, clearly it's a service catering for capacity on the intermediate journeys.

Not misleading at all. I said mostly, not all.
The 07:24 is indeed a stopping HST that gets a set from Neville Hill into service. There's one goes back up in the evening too.
The vast majority of HST services through the day are the XX:32 Notts - St Pan that only have 3 stops.

I don't see the word infinite - I see the loose words "strong case" and argued by local/regional groups

Page 78, Section 7.3.2. The bit that reads:

Two schemes - the Great Western Main Line and the Midland Main Line - have particularly high BCRs without dependency on further electrification. In the case of the Midland Main Line the value is technically infinite given that it involves a net industry cost saving rather than a cost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HS2 largely replaces MML for its Sheffield-London traffic in potentially 15 years from now.

The Midland Mainline is bigger than Sheffield. HS2 will benefit no other users at intermediate stops. Not even around Nottingham or Derby as the time savings of travelling on HS2 will be lost getting to Toton.

To be fair, that document is 6 years old and nicely sidestepped the limited resource issues of completing electrification on operational track in 4hr possessions through the night - unlike Crossrail/HS2 which will be stringing wires on a construction sites

6 years old but the benefits of electrification have not changed. If anything the benefits are greater now as passenger numbers have increased, and rolling stock is older than when the document was published. Crossrail and HS2 may not impact the existing railway during construction, but they'll certainly impact on the surrounding roads and residents.

 

[Emblematic]

EMT are on record as wanting rid of HSTs as soon as possible, as they are becoming very difficult to maintain.

It's worth bearing in mind that EMT's class 43s are the VP185 powered rebuilds, which were mostly (if not all) done before the MTU conversions. I've heard the conversions described as rebuilt to as-new standard (can't vouch for that myself), and the last few were done only 5 years ago. Scotrail and FGW don't seem to have many qualms about running them for a few more years, even if the latter would rather have new trains. Maybe EMT or their successors just need to get MTU 43s when they are freed up and dump the Paxmans.

Isn't the answer to use Mk4s cascaded from the ECML, with class 67s actually achieving their claimed 125mph (or at least 110mph) on shortened rakes?.

I can't imagine that setup even keeping to HST timings. A pair of 43s has more power and tractive effort, plus twice the motored axles.

One good thing about this 'pause' - the next EM franchise holder isn't faced with the worries of whether the electrification and new stock introduction can be completed by 2020, and if not how to deal with the PRM-TSI deadline. It was extremely tight even if all went to plan. Now the franchise can be let on the basis of no electrification, and get on with acquiring or modifying whatever they decide to run without wires.

 

[snowball]

Two schemes - the Great Western Main Line and the Midland Main Line - have particularly high BCRs without dependency on further electrification. In the case of the Midland Main Line the value is technically infinite given that it involves a net industry cost saving rather than a cost.

6 years old but the benefits of electrification have not changed. If anything the benefits are greater now as passenger numbers have increased, and rolling stock is older than when the document was published.

Estimates of electrification costs on GWR seem to have doubled or more in a very short time. If they've increased similarly on MML, they may now exceed direct benefits, so the "infinite" bit may no longer be true.

 

[Kneedown]

Estimates of electrification costs on GWR seem to have doubled or more in a very short time. If they've increased similarly on MML, they may now exceed direct benefits, so the "infinite" bit may no longer be true.

They increased a little due to the neccessity of renewing existing OHLE equipment south of Bedford to cope with 125mph, but apart from that the project was pretty much on track and confidence was high.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not misleading at all. I said mostly, not all. The 07:24 is indeed a stopping HST that gets a set from Neville Hill into service. There's one goes back up in the evening too. The vast majority of HST services through the day are the XX:32 Notts - St Pan that only have 3 stops.

Rewind a bit, we were talking about your claim of the "disaster" that is the delayed electrification, yet we are heading way into strawman territory here with a parallel debate about continued use of HST's despite EMT's alleged objections. The fact is that EMT do use HST's on routes with many stops because they need the capacity at a peak time - key here is capacity shortfall, not time to travel to London and just how much would continued use of DEMU's degrade vs the preferred EMU solution - especially now in the wake of HS2

Page 78, Section 7.3.2. The bit that reads:


technically infinite

Nope, not seeing that phrase in here...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf

I've difficulties also in referring to a CBA statement for MML made in 2009 prior to the establishment of the early outcomes for HS2 - specifically in that the benefits will not now be as great beyond completion of HS2 Phase 2 - whilst it's fair to say that HS2 isn't quite nailed on definite until the contractors start stripping the turf, at this time, HS2 is still a key project for the government that will be in power until 2020 - that's after start on site of Phase 1

The Midland Mainline is bigger than Sheffield. HS2 will benefit no other users at intermediate stops. Not even around Nottingham or Derby as the time savings of travelling on HS2 will be lost getting to Toton.

Nonsense, remove the Sheffield travellers and you have a better service for travellers further down the line - and you are falling into the trap of assuming travellers from Derby and Nottingham do so because it's easy - vast areas of both cities will find it quicker travelling against the dominant peak flow into the two cities to get to Toton - but again, we digress into another parallel debate rather than getting into the facts about the real value of EMU's vs DEMU's on MML in the shorter timeframe than set out in 2009 (rather than looking at 35 plus years benefits, we are looking at just 10 years full benefits, then a drop in benefits when many passengers in the north transfer to HS2. It's a similar tale for TPE - why spend £1Bn on wiring up Leeds to Manchester for an extra train per hour when you can redirect that money onto a new line for a much better return for several northern cities instead.

6 years old but the benefits of electrification have not changed. If anything the benefits are greater now as passenger numbers have increased, and rolling stock is older than when the document was published.

I'm not arguing with the principal of electrification - I'm arguing against the statement that delaying electrification on MML is such a disaster - electrification isn't an absolute black and white issue on MML, the line is a different beast to GWML, in particular the age of existing rolling stock, the problems with resourcing this, plus GWML and TPE, the actual progress done to date and the options possible to provide mitigations on MML to help reduce the impact of delaying stringing the wires up.

Crossrail and HS2 may not impact the existing railway during construction, but they'll certainly impact on the surrounding roads and residents.

My comment was about the difficulties of wiring on an operational mainline vs a closed building site - it's clear that construction will have huge impact on local areas, but your going off on a tangent again....

-----------

To add, please don't take this personally, I'm trying to have a reasoned debate on the actual facts and the complex issues surrounding MML in particular - it's clear that it's not a simple black and white situation - GWML isn't either but is much clearer on why it's taking priority with the progress to date and Hitachi turning the Class 800/801 sausage machine handle up in Durham !

Love and peace

 

[nottsnurse]

Meridian's are not the most reliable of units, and it is a constant battle for the maintenance team to keep the HST's running.

I've travelled between Nottingham and Leicester regularly (4/5 times a week) over the past 5 years and have only once experienced a problem with the Class 222s (two engines were not working) which related specifically to the train rather than external factors. The 'problem'? We arrived a whole 10 minutes or so late into Nottingham. Big wow!

I find that, aside from a spate of 'Monday Jumpers' EMT run a pretty decent service, with generally clean trains and a reliable service. But I'm just a user, rather than a enthusiast, what would I know?

 

[Kneedown]

I've travelled between Nottingham and Leicester regularly (4/5 times a week) over the past 5 years and have only once experienced a problem with the Class 222s (two engines were not working) which related specifically to the train rather than external factors. The 'problem'? We arrived a whole 10 minutes or so late into Nottingham. Big wow!

I find that, aside from a spate of 'Monday Jumpers' EMT run a pretty decent service, with generally clean trains and a reliable service. But I'm just a user, rather than a enthusiast, what would I know?

One or more engines out on a Meridian is fairly regular, along with other problems, but hey, i'm only a Driver with a mere +25years experience on all types of train in the East Mids, what could I possibly know that a enthusiast doesn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rewind a bit, we were talking about your claim of the "disaster" that is the delayed electrification, yet we are heading way into strawman territory here with a parallel debate about continued use of HST's despite EMT's alleged objections. The fact is that EMT do use HST's on routes with many stops because they need the capacity at a peak time - key here is capacity shortfall, not time to travel to London and just how much would continued use of DEMU's degrade vs the preferred EMU solution - especially now in the wake of HS2

To quote you.....

Originally Posted by Haydn1971 View Post
That is a misleading statement. The 7:24 from Leeds is a HST that stops at 8 stations after Sheffield, the 7:29 is a 222 which calls at 4 - Journey time is longer on the HST, clearly it's a service catering for capacity on the intermediate journeys.

It was this I replied to.

Nope, not seeing that phrase in here...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf

You appear to have linked to a different document, however, try page 67, last but one row, final column.

"www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=2095"

Above is the webpage where the pdf document I was quoting from may be downloaded.

Nonsense, remove the Sheffield travellers and you have a better service for travellers further down the line - and you are falling into the trap of assuming travellers from Derby and Nottingham do so because it's easy - vast areas of both cities will find it quicker travelling against the dominant peak flow into the two cities to get to Toton

How would it be a better service for people down the line? Do you believe that Sheffield passengers will all go HS2 and that MML trains will terminate at Chesterfield? The best they can hope for is a few extra seats made available by those willing to pay the extra to travel HS2.
As regards Toton, you are falling into the trap of assuming that peak flow in the area only flows into the cities. Quite the opposite, it goes both ways as I well know from when I used to do a Derby-Toton, then a Derby-Nottingham commute. Probably because the two cities are fairly close together. Not everyone lives to the West of Nottingham or the East of Derby either.

I obviously have a very different viewpoint to yours. I have tried to answer your questions and counter your points in a respectful manner. I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my views as "Nonsense". As I mentioned above, I am a Railway Professional with many years of experience in the industry, and while I make no claim to be an expert in all fields, I do have a good knowledge of the railways in the East Midlands and what makes them tick, and also what would make them tick louder.
This is the second time electrification has been denied to the MML. The first time the wires didn't make it past Bedford. Years of underinvestment in the region have taken their toll and when cracks appear they are merely papered over at best. You will forgive the people of the area, myself included, for actually caring and being short changed yet again.

That is all.

 

[CdBrux]

They increased a little due to the neccessity of renewing existing OHLE equipment south of Bedford to cope with 125mph, but apart from that the project was pretty much on track and confidence was high.

What's to say that as the project continues into the actual electrification part (not just any bridges etc... done so far) they won't meet problems like experienced on GWML and start to see the project fall behind plan and over budget?

 

[Mikey C]

What's to say that as the project continues into the actual electrification part (not just any bridges etc... done so far) they won't meet problems like experienced on GWML and start to see the project fall behind plan and over budget?

Yes, at this stage of the GWML electrification all looked rosy there too...

 

[nottsnurse]

One or more engines out on a Meridian is fairly regular, along with other problems, but hey, i'm only a Driver with a mere +25years experience on all types of train in the East Mids, what could I possibly know that a enthusiast doesn't.

Driver and condescending throbber too it appears. Did you use the word "enthusiast" as some kind of limp attempt at an insult?

Now would I consider myself an enthusiast? No, first and foremost I'd consider myself a rail user as I only use the railways as a means of getting around, not because I am 'enthused' by them. To this end I gave my opinion as a (regular) service user and I stand by my comments, they're not made up!!

If you don't agree with my comments then that is your pejorative but there is no need to be an arse about it.

 

[Senex]

I obviously have a very different viewpoint to yours. I have tried to answer your questions and counter your points in a respectful manner. I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my views as "Nonsense". As I mentioned above, I am a Railway Professional with many years of experience in the industry, and while I make no claim to be an expert in all fields, I do have a good knowledge of the railways in the East Midlands and what makes them tick, and also what would make them tick louder.
This is the second time electrification has been denied to the MML. The first time the wires didn't make it past Bedford. Years of underinvestment in the region have taken their toll and when cracks appear they are merely papered over at best. You will forgive the people of the area, myself included, for actually caring and being short changed yet again.

That is all.

Very well said, sir!

And your last two sentences could also be applied equally well to the Trans-Pennine route.

As to the debate over diesel power on the Midland and what cast-offs might be brought in from other lines, I fail to see how any units other than 220s could keep the Class 222 timings on a main line characterised by many changes of gradient and a very uneven speed profile that requires constant deceleration and acceleration.

 

[edwin_m]

As to the debate over diesel power on the Midland and what cast-offs might be brought in from other lines, I fail to see how any units other than 220s could keep the Class 222 timings on a main line characterised by many changes of gradient and a very uneven speed profile that requires constant deceleration and acceleration.

The 222s can continue on the Midland Main Line and there is no obvious other place to use them anyway. The issue is the relatively few services that are worked by HSTs today, which were planned to be scrapped by 2020 so weren't planned to be modified to meet accessibility rules.

The most likely outcome for these services in the short term is refurbishment of the existing HSTs or similar ones cascaded from another route. The only need to replace 222s with HSTs is if growth in passenger numbers means that some 222 services need lengthening and the existing fleet can't then cover all the services it does now. This would only happen to a few services, and is less likely if the Corby electrification goes ahead as that releases (at a guess) two or three four- or five-car 222s.

Do those complaining about deferment of MML electrification propose that the GWML should be deferred instead, or believe we have the resources to undertake both projects simultaneously, or have some other solution to the problems that have cause this announcement?

 

[Kneedown]

Driver and condescending throbber too it appears. Did you use the word "enthusiast" as some kind of limp attempt at an insult?

Now would I consider myself an enthusiast? No, first and foremost I'd consider myself a rail user as I only use the railways as a means of getting around, not because I am 'enthused' by them. To this end I gave my opinion as a (regular) service user and I stand by my comments, they're not made up!!

If you don't agree with my comments then that is your pejorative but there is no need to be an arse about it.

I fear you have misunderstood me.
My reply was intended to take the form of a similar context to your post, in a light hearted manner.
Obviously I didn't clarify that well enough and I therefore offer you my apologies. Absolutely no offence was intended.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do those complaining about deferment of MML electrification propose that the GWML should be deferred instead, or believe we have the resources to undertake both projects simultaneously, or have some other solution to the problems that have cause this announcement?

I absolutely don't believe the GWML should be stopped. It's too far gone for that. There is a way to make better use of the resources though. The work takes place in stages. As each stage is completed on the GWML, then it's logical to move the team to the MML while the next stage gets underway on the GW.

 

[Chester1]

How would it be a better service for people down the line? Do you believe that Sheffield passengers will all go HS2 and that MML trains will terminate at Chesterfield? The best they can hope for is a few extra seats made available by those willing to pay the extra to travel HS2.

If HS2 tickets are significantly more than MML tickets it will defy the entire point of the project and make it a massive failure, so its funding system will be setup to ensure this doesn't happen. Has there been any annoucements that imply otherwise? If no, its reasonable to assume that London-Sheffield passengers will be a small fraction of their current numbers after HS2 completion.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If HS2 tickets are significantly more than MML tickets it will defy the entire point of the project and make it a massive failure, so its funding system will be setup to ensure this doesn't happen. Has there been any annoucements that imply otherwise? If no, its reasonable to assume that London-Sheffield passengers will be a small fraction of their current numbers after HS2 completion.

I am sure whoever is setting ticket prices is capable of working out prices that will distribute people in a way that works.

We have to remember that the UK is a very dense country, and HS2 is being built through the densest areas - this is contrary to France, where their LGVs track through many miles of open countryside. There will still be plenty of demand for our classic services, even though HS2 will take much of the traffic between the largest population centres.

 

[Kneedown]

If HS2 tickets are significantly more than MML tickets it will defy the entire point of the project and make it a massive failure, so its funding system will be setup to ensure this doesn't happen. Has there been any annoucements that imply otherwise? If no, its reasonable to assume that London-Sheffield passengers will be a small fraction of their current numbers after HS2 completion.

According to Wiki (I know I know) Sheffield Station was used by more than 8.6m passengers in 2013/14.
It would be nice to know how many used London services as opposed travelling on other services, and of those, how many actually travel through to London as opposed to Chesterfield, Derby, Leicester etc. That should give the potential usage of HS2 from Sheffield. Without figures it's hard to tell, but I suspect it's a drop in the ocean compared with usage at stations along the entire route.
As regards HS2 fare structure, I'm not aware of any official announcements, but it's reasonable to assume that the investors will want to recoup money fairly quickly charging a higher fare for the premium service.

 

[HSTEd]

As regards HS2 fare structure, I'm not aware of any official announcements, but it's reasonable to assume that the investors will want to recoup money fairly quickly charging a higher fare for the premium service.

If they double the price of the tickets, but the number of tickets sold falls by three quarters as a result then they are worse off.
The marginal costs of high speed operation are very low, they will want to make use of this by piling high and selling cheap - maximising total income and thus returns on investment.

 

[Senex]

The 222s can continue on the Midland Main Line and there is no obvious other place to use them anyway. The issue is the relatively few services that are worked by HSTs today, which were planned to be scrapped by 2020 so weren't planned to be modified to meet accessibility rules.

The most likely outcome for these services in the short term is refurbishment of the existing HSTs or similar ones cascaded from another route. The only need to replace 222s with HSTs is if growth in passenger numbers means that some 222 services need lengthening and the existing fleet can't then cover all the services it does now. This would only happen to a few services, and is less likely if the Corby electrification goes ahead as that releases (at a guess) two or three four- or five-car 222s.

Do those complaining about deferment of MML electrification propose that the GWML should be deferred instead, or believe we have the resources to undertake both projects simultaneously, or have some other solution to the problems that have cause this announcement?

Electrification was due to bring further acceleration to Midland services, particularly through to Sheffield. The present HSTs cannot cannot maintain 222 timings on the line, so presumably neither could any cast-off HSTs drafted in from other lines.

And yes, I do think the GW project should have been the one to be "paused", despite the egg-on-face for the Dft over rolling stock, because that is the project that appears to have run completely out of control, both on time-scale and on costs. It needs to be "paused" and very carefully re-assessed and re-programmed before being allowed to start up again.

And, as has been pointed out in this thread already, the financial case for the Midland was always better than that for the GW. The only significant add-on to the Midland has been the decision that an upgrade of the OLE from London to Bedford is needed, whereas the GW seems to be gaining extra costs pretty well with every blink of an eye.

 

[Haydn1971]

You appear to have linked to a different document, however, try page 67, last but one row, final column.



"www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=2095"

Cheers, however, the term "infinite" in 2009 is academic now given what we know now about HS2 in 2015 - as mentioned above, the CBA is likely to be different now.

How would it be a better service for people down the line? Do you believe that Sheffield passengers will all go HS2 and that MML trains will terminate at Chesterfield? The best they can hope for is a few extra seats made available by those willing to pay the extra to travel HS2.

I don't believe there will be "EMT/Virgin style franchises" after HS2 opens - you will end up with a CrossCountry style operation covering the former front line ECML/MML/WCML routes, providing less express services mixed with more semi-fasts and stoppers than now taking advantage of the paths not required for long distance passengers. Pricing HS2 at a premium above the previous express service will defeat the object of HS2, leaving more passengers on the old line.

As regards Toton, you are falling into the trap of assuming that peak flow in the area only flows into the cities. Quite the opposite, it goes both ways as I well know from when I used to do a Derby-Toton, then a Derby-Nottingham commute. Probably because the two cities are fairly close together. Not everyone lives to the West of Nottingham or the East of Derby either.

There ya go again, twisting my words - the dominant flow of people across all modes is towards urban areas in the morning, away in the evening, yes, some people go the reverse and its fairly true that nearby cities have a symbiotic type flow of people in both directions. But as I've said repeated over the last few months on HS2, there will be some winners and some losers.

I obviously have a very different viewpoint to yours. I have tried to answer your questions and counter your points in a respectful manner. I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my views as "Nonsense". As I mentioned above, I am a Railway Professional with many years of experience in the industry, and while I make no claim to be an expert in all fields, I do have a good knowledge of the railways in the East Midlands and what makes them tick, and also what would make them tick louder.

Again, as I said above, please don't take my debate personal - it's interesting hearing different views, it's the way we all learn new things - I too have 27 years worth of experience in architecture and civil engineering, a lot less than you on rail to be fair, but a lot in transportation matters.

We do share a lot in common, I'm keen on rail and electrification too

This is the second time electrification has been denied to the MML. The first time the wires didn't make it past Bedford. Years of underinvestment in the region have taken their toll and when cracks appear they are merely papered over at best. You will forgive the people of the area, myself included, for actually caring and being short changed yet again.



That is all.

Same here, time for the pub - I'm on holiday in South Wales

 

[devinier]

Call me a cynic if you like, but an electrified MML would probably make HS2 look even more pointless than it already does.

 

[Kneedown]

Same here, time for the pub - I'm on holiday in South Wales

I like North Wales myself (As well as my wife's and my homeland, when I go back I have access to my Bro in Laws boat and lobster pots!. Purple Mws ale too!) But Pembrokeshire is lovely.
Have a great hol!

 

[Haydn1971]

North Wales is a tad easier to reach from Sheffield !

Back now, the pub was for grub... Got a front row deck view of the sunset, sat with a rum and coke:.. Happy days !

 

[Mikey C]

Electrification was due to bring further acceleration to Midland services, particularly through to Sheffield. The present HSTs cannot cannot maintain 222 timings on the line, so presumably neither could any cast-off HSTs drafted in from other lines.

And yes, I do think the GW project should have been the one to be "paused", despite the egg-on-face for the Dft over rolling stock, because that is the project that appears to have run completely out of control, both on time-scale and on costs. It needs to be "paused" and very carefully re-assessed and re-programmed before being allowed to start up again.

And, as has been pointed out in this thread already, the financial case for the Midland was always better than that for the GW. The only significant add-on to the Midland has been the decision that an upgrade of the OLE from London to Bedford is needed, whereas the GW seems to be gaining extra costs pretty well with every blink of an eye.

If the GWML electrification has massive problems, why if it was stopped would the MML be any better? Surely it would have the same problems, and the end result of getting ANY mainline railway electrified would be delayed several years as the MML is starting from virtually the beginning.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The problem isn't GW vs MML vs TP electrification, it's the whole CP5 budget for NR, rumoured to be heading for an overspend of more than 10%.

The brakes are now being applied to CP5 schemes all over the network and the smart industry money is going on CP5 and CP6 being combined with perhaps an interim review along the way, if the ORR is still making the decisions by then.

Since the Treasury got their hands on NR last year they have been effectively put back into the position BR was in, despite the regulatory control period. They have borrowing limits, they report their finances regularly to the Treasury and they are subject to annual budgets, via the usual parliamentary process.

And the Hendy view is not the only one to watch. Colette Bowe is one scary person to have looking at the future of rail investment and how it is determined and monitored. Her report should make interesting, if uncomfortable for some, reading.

 

[petersi]

Do you think that most projects which have not got beyond grip3 will cut
Are schemes like east west rail one portishead dead in the water.

If resignalling of the ecml is abandoned what does that mean for class 800 trains as not all the ecml ones will be required

 

[Emblematic]

If the GWML electrification has massive problems, why if it was stopped would the MML be any better? Surely it would have the same problems, and the end result of getting ANY mainline railway electrified would be delayed several years as the MML is starting from virtually the beginning.

Many of the problems on the GWML have only come to light since the physical works have commenced, and this may well happen on the MML - indeed you would hope that lessons are learned and contingencies added to that project when (if) it resumes. However stopping either project helps the other, when there are constraints and resource bottlenecks.
The report into the Christmas problems at Finsbury Park is revealing, one issue was limited engineering train crews due to other major work going on in parallel; when the job overran, the crews were rescheduled, but then ran out of hours and no-one else was then available. At one point they had five trains waiting to be moved, but only one driver on site.
It's was not hard to imagine a point in time, lets say in 2017, where MML, Transpennine and Goblin projects all have scheduled work for specialist wiring teams, and those teams are unavailable as they are tied up with GWML overruns. Untangling the dependencies and consequences is easier with two fewer projects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem isn't GW vs MML vs TP electrification, it's the whole CP5 budget for NR, rumoured to be heading for an overspend of more than 10%.

I don't think its purely financial, but ultimately all project issues will have financial consequences and can cause overspends. So rescheduling the overall programme simplifies the project management and reduces risk to each element, as well as deferring some of the spend.
That's the upside - the downside is that it's easier to pull the plug on the projects in hiatus, and of course some of the programme benefits are delayed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you think that most projects which have not got beyond grip3 will cut
Are schemes like east west rail one portishead dead in the water.

If resignalling of the ecml is abandoned what does that mean for class 800 trains as not all the ecml ones will be required

They may not be cut automatically, but I think there will be much tighter control on spending, likely fewer projects and spread over longer timescales. Some may well not make the cut.
Resignalling is a huge issue, it's been a problem since Railtrack days and NR have bet the ranch on ERTMS delivering capacity increases. Whether it actually will, and what their plan B is if it's canned, I doubt anyone knows.
In any case, the 800s are coming and VTEC are contractually bound to use them. I believe VTEC are retaining some 91 + Mk4 sets, so these would be the first to go if services are cut.

 

[edwin_m]

Resignalling is a huge issue, it's been a problem since Railtrack days and NR have bet the ranch on ERTMS delivering capacity increases. Whether it actually will, and what their plan B is if it's canned, I doubt anyone knows.

Not only delivering capacity increases, but also being achievable within the planned budgets and timescales by a supply chain that is still largely unfamiliar with it. Arguably a bigger risk than OLE, and I suspect Mark Carne's "digital railway" bringing ERTMS forward will now go very quiet indeed.

 

[snowball]

Interview with Sir Peter Hendy

http://www.theguardian.com/business...-transport-chief-completes-move-national-rail

It only took five days. On Saturday 20 June, Sir Peter Hendy was approached to be the new chair of Network Rail. By 5pm on Wednesday he had accepted, and less than 24 hours later ministers were publicly admitting the depth of the crisis in the railways, scrapping pledges of major upgrades and announcing the new faces being parachuted in to run the system.

The speed of Hendy’s move, after almost a decade as London’s transport commissioner, underlines the government’s desperation to get to grips with Network Rail – and left him as surprised as anyone. “No one guessed – in fact, not even I guessed it was going to happen.

Hendy, unexpectedly, was leaving the London role he had made his own. Now, he claims: “I’m adjusted to it, because the truth is the day you say you’re going, everything starts happening around you. You might as well go – there’s no point in hanging around for a farewell party.”

 

[Crundles]

In terms of new infrastructure on the ground, we got very little post-97 compared to before it. Look at the electrification, masses of station (re)openings, Light rail projects and so on that were funded and started/completed in the 80s and early 90s compared to after it.

Some of that may be down to privatisation and the inflated costs of actually doing anything (and they told us that it would make the railway more efficient...:roll

We mustn't forget though the truly dreary state of the railways post-privatization. There was an enormous backlog of basic infrastructure work, a fact sadly made manifest in the accidents at Ladbroke Grove, Potter's Bar and Hatfield. The subsequent track renewal program and eventual bail-out of Railtrack cost over £3 billion. At the same time, massive overruns accrued by the WCML modernization program and the perilous finances of LCR/HS1 (key projects approved under Major's government) required close to another £10 billion in public funds to rectify. Despite this the era saw widespread installation of TPWS and other saftey features, massive investment in new rolling stock and overall capital refurbishment, plus the go-ahead for projects like Crossrail, the Thameslink upgrade, extension of Tyne & Wear Metro etc. I'm not saying everything was great - far from it - but years between 1997 and 2010 was saw the rail industry grow faster than at any time in the post-war era.