Speeding up Rail Projects?

[matacaster]

Rail is very good at transporting large numbers of people and freight from one significant place to another. When a new freight flow is in sight or passenger behaviour alters the time taken by rail to respond is simply too long and cost is much too high.
Simple example
Quarries at Horton in Robblesdale took many years to get a set of points and a simple siding. If the upfront cost had been borne by NR and a small levy attached to the freight service cost, then this could have been done several years earlier, with the revenue going to rail and locals berry happy. A further issue was the cost of the turnout which seems ridiculous.

Major Rail schemes now take decades and costs are eye-watering. By the time a scheme is complete (say HS2/NPR) much might have changed to reduce its relevance.

What would you do to make rail projects quicker to implement and at lower cost?

 

[JonathanH]

What would you do to make rail projects quicker to implement and at lower cost?

Not always easy - they tried to reduce the cost and timing of Crossrail and it will open over three years late and more expensive than the original budget.

 

[zwk500]

For major projects - change the law. The longest part of any infrastructure project is getting the go-ahead from the government. The second longest part is securing legal authority to build the line - planning permission, land acquisition, compulsoury purchase etc are all expensive and painstakingly slow, because people are rather protective of their most significant assets. You'd need to change the law to the massive disadvantage of property holders.

 

[edwin_m]

For major projects - change the law. The longest part of any infrastructure project is getting the go-ahead from the government. The second longest part is securing legal authority to build the line - planning permission, land acquisition, compulsoury purchase etc are all expensive and painstakingly slow, because people are rather protective of their most significant assets. You'd need to change the law to the massive disadvantage of property holders.

Also getting intermediate "go-a-bit-aheads" for each stage of development. Design work or business case may be done and then pondered over so long that if and when the next step is authorised, the details or assumptions made last time are no longer valid and much of it has to be done again. Sometimes powers are obtained and lapse, or consultation has to be repeated.

 

[4F89]

Dig everything in tunnels

 

[JonathanH]

Dig everything in tunnels

Fine for running lines - not so good for stations.

 

[InTheEastMids]

When a new freight flow is in sight or passenger behaviour alters the time taken by rail to respond is simply too long and cost is much too high

This is the nub of the question. It doesn't start with political cycles, funding etc, but does end up there.

The average person in the street is going to look at something like Okehampton and say, 'well the track and station was already there, so why not just get on with it?'. My diagnosis is that it's because rail is an industry based on adherence to standards of largely its own making. There are good reasons for this - safety being the most obvious and covering everything from fundamental track-bed stability through to crew training. When you look at it through the lens of making a train service entirely compliant with all standards, then suddenly costs have risen, timescales have lengthened, it becomes a major project which needs more planning, funding in a CP funding settlement, planning & NIMBY opposition, and a painfully achieved political consensus.

At a more operational level, it's obviously more difficult to change anything if the system is already at capacity - it is more delicate and being responsive to new opportunities loses resilience - you see this particularly on routes like Thameslink where services have to arrive at certain points of the network at the right time, in the right order for the timetable to work. These constraints propagate through the network through different pinch points

Ryanair can (and does) change its schedule to address new opportunities very quickly compared to any major GB TOC, and that's worth having a think about why (from the perspective of different stakeholders).

 

[Brush 4]

It's DfT micro management from what I gather. The Oke reopening started with a local questionnaire in 2008. After the go-ahead was given in 2020, it took only 9 months to have it ready, even though most of the line was relaid. It is as said above, the bureaucracy that delays and then delays again. Portishead has just been delayed for another 6 months, for the DCO decision. It's the Government/Whitehall who are the cause of inaction. It is they who need to improve most of all, not so much NR or TOC's

 

[deltic]

The largest rail project in the UK, HS2 went from an initial idea in 2008/9 to approval for the first phase in 2017 which shows what can be done. The construction works themselves however seems to have gone far more slowly than planned.

 

[Annetts key]

Do people think BR was quicker, slower or about the same time in changing compared to the current system?

But from my perspective, the ‘response time’ does appear to depend on many, many factors. Hence it’s not always easy to compare different projects. For example, was the various IEP/IET maintenance depots and associated junction/track/signalling alterations that were needed, slower or faster than people expected?

 

[Boodiggy]

Rail is very good at transporting large numbers of people and freight from one significant place to another. When a new freight flow is in sight or passenger behaviour alters the time taken by rail to respond is simply too long and cost is much too high.
Simple example
Quarries at Horton in Robblesdale took many years to get a set of points and a simple siding. If the upfront cost had been borne by NR and a small levy attached to the freight service cost, then this could have been done several years earlier, with the revenue going to rail and locals berry happy. A further issue was the cost of the turnout which seems ridiculous.

Major Rail schemes now take decades and costs are eye-watering. By the time a scheme is complete (say HS2/NPR) much might have changed to reduce its relevance.

What would you do to make rail projects quicker to implement and at lower cost?

For changes like this it is the signalling that costs the most, a turnout on its own isn’t much in the grand scheme of things on its own. There is a lot of time consuming things in the background that need to happen but I agree things take time to get done that should be quicker.

 

[Bald Rick]

The largest rail project in the UK, HS2 went from an initial idea in 2008/9 to approval for the first phase in 2017 which shows what can be done. The construction works themselves however seems to have gone far more slowly than planned.

The 2017 ‘Approval’ was that the enabling Act was authorised. This is broadly the equivalent to gaining outline planning permission for a new house.

It was February 2020 before Financial Approval was obtained (equivalent to securing the mortgage). Since then, construction work has moved at pace.

 

[deltic]

The 2017 ‘Approval’ was that the enabling Act was authorised. This is broadly the equivalent to gaining outline planning permission for a new house.

It was February 2020 before Financial Approval was obtained (equivalent to securing the mortgage). Since then, construction work has moved at pace.

Quite a bit of enabling works and property purchase took place before 2020 but yes Notice to Proceed for main construction works was given in Feb 2020.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Do people think BR was quicker, slower or about the same time in changing compared to the current system?

But from my perspective, the ‘response time’ does appear to depend on many, many factors. Hence it’s not always easy to compare different projects. For example, was the various IEP/IET maintenance depots and associated junction/track/signalling alterations that were needed, slower or faster than people expected?

BR was far quicker when it just applied proven solutions to projects be it resignalling, electrification or the odd new station but it was more than capable of finding itself in cul de sac when it tried something new. Problem with Railtrack and to a lesser extent NR is it constantly wants to reinvent the wheel rather than just getting on with it.

 

[Irascible]

It's DfT micro management from what I gather. The Oke reopening started with a local questionnaire in 2008. After the go-ahead was given in 2020, it took only 9 months to have it ready, even though most of the line was relaid. It is as said above, the bureaucracy that delays and then delays again. Portishead has just been delayed for another 6 months, for the DCO decision. It's the Government/Whitehall who are the cause of inaction. It is they who need to improve most of all, not so much NR or TOC's

To be fair, Okehampton's case has been helped considerably by DCC campaigning & running trains there themselves for decades ( and wasn't the quarry being reopened for HS2 needs? so the line might have had work done irrespective of any passenger service if that was the case ). Portishead on the other hand seems to just be a horrorshow - the current delay is apparently to try and avoid a juidicial enquiry from ... parties invested in different ideas, I guess.

Overall though perhaps comparing timescales to that of comparable road schemes & if there's a difference seeing how they manage to get things done might be a good start.

 

[Bald Rick]

Overall though perhaps comparing timescales to that of comparable road schemes & if there's a difference seeing how they manage to get things done might be a good start.

In principle, there isn’t a difference. Very similar planning / development / consents processes. Look how long it has taken to get some road schemes through. Extreme example - the Stonehenge bypass ha sheen in planing 27 years.

 

[Shernan]

There's an easy way to do it. Lay tbe groundwork while doing the consultation process and start doing the work immediately after consultation. Shorten the environmental and urban planning side of things would also help as well. Can as well use some prerogative power to take the land on the route asap as well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2021 ==

For costs, we can bring in more Eastern European, and Asian construction workers and contractors to help. They can definitely build very quickly, see China

 

[zwk500]

There's an easy way to do it. Lay tbe groundwork while doing the consultation process and start doing the work immediately after consultation. Shorten the environmental and urban planning side of things would also help as well. Can as well use some prerogative power to take the land on the route asap as well.

Remember that whatever you suggest as the process would not be specific to rail - it would apply to Roads, Airports, seaports, power stations etc as well. What you suggest is all very well but I suspect if it was your house being requisitioned you'd feel rather different about having less rights.

 

[Shernan]

Better to make Consultations and reviews a rubberstamp. Sick of people going on the news saying blah blah blah or those environmental groups going crazy or file law suits at the expense of our economy

 

[zwk500]

Better to make Consultations and reviews a rubberstamp. Sick of people going on the news saying blah blah blah or those environmental groups going crazy or file law suits at the expense of our economy

So the minister can just draw a line on the map and that's it? I doubt you'll be so blase about it if it's your house in the firing line of a D3 motorway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Lay tbe groundwork while doing the consultation process and start doing the work immediately after consultation

what if the consultation results in the route being changed? (as often happens).

 

[Irascible]

In principle, there isn’t a difference. Very similar planning / development / consents processes. Look how long it has taken to get some road schemes through. Extreme example - the Stonehenge bypass ha sheen in planing 27 years.

Is there a road equivalent of GRIP? I appreciate regional funding is a much bigger thing in roads, but the whole process is not something I know anything about, really.

Better to make Consultations and reviews a rubberstamp. Sick of people going on the news saying blah blah blah or those environmental groups going crazy or file law suits at the expense of our economy

Ask yourself why the laws are there. Laws are not passed to deliberately damage the economy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there a road equivalent of GRIP? I appreciate regional funding is a much bigger thing in roads, but the whole process is not something I know anything about, really.

There is, and it’s broadly comparable. Although, of course, GRIP is dead, long live PACE.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there a road equivalent of GRIP? I appreciate regional funding is a much bigger thing in roads, but the whole process is not something I know anything about, really.

AIUI on the sort of strategic projects Highways Agency run it’s called “Project Control Framework”…