The Growth Plan - Rail Projects

[philthetube]

It's absurd that the planning and enquiry process takes much longer than the construction phase. There should be a guillotine on such stages which clearing out the EU rules will help, although it was probably the UK's rigid interpretation of these that caused the problem, a goldmine for the many
parasite "professions" that serviced the process.

WAO

bearing in mind that a guillotine could mean a no.

 

[Bald Rick]

The dead easy single platform scheme they basically have the money for? Though its spend it or lose it I hear.

I wouldn’t say it’s that easy *cough* *rolling stock*.

 

[Snow1964]

Indeed. It's pretty insane. I paid attention to a road project close to me - the A303 dualling near Sparkford. There are 111 environmental reports, for 3 miles of road. The Cultural Heritage report alone runs to 170 pages. The planning costs (£45m) add up to more per mile than France can build the actual road for. I'm all in favour of protecting the environment and being completely aware of what may be lost, but it seems that the balance is all wrong

Its madness, also in the list is Chippenham bypass phases 4 (Lackham to A4) and phase 5 (Cepen South to Bumpers Farm) dualling. The earthworks and bridges were all done few years ago when bypass was built. So it is basically digging out some scrubby bushes that have grown up and laying the extra carriageway. But apparently it will take nearly 3 years for environmental reports before work can start.

Its a UK planning extremism, unlike the French that have a Declaration of public utility, then just get on with it.

 

[Roast Veg]

Quite a lot not on the list of course…

And yet WYCA mass transit, pet project of a labour mayor and the perennial victim of cutbacks, checks in at number 104.

 

[mandub]

In general these tax cuts and supply side measures require a cut in public spending to balance out. That is the economic theory they are pursuing. They will not let structural public spending increase.

Railway will take its share of that pain, in investments and upgrades & pay awards etc. Hopefully not also in actual contraction of the services provided.

 

[Mordac]

EU ‘rules’ have nothing to do with it. The planning legislation is all our own work, and always has been.

EU legislation had quite a lot to say on environmental impact assessments, although as usual Whitehall probably went above and beyond.

 

[Starmill]

Hopefully not also in actual contraction of the services provided.

This has already happened substantially in some areas across England and Scotland.

 

[fandroid]

It's absurd that the planning and enquiry process takes much longer than the construction phase. There should be a guillotine on such stages which clearing out the EU rules will help, although it was probably the UK's rigid interpretation of these that caused the problem, a goldmine for the many
parasite "professions" that serviced the process.

WAO

It's not absurd that the planning process takes longer than construction. In the past there's been many a project overrun wildly on both cost and time due to inadequate preparation. Only the very biggest projects with the highest impacts actually have public inquiries anyway.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

None of this mentions resignalling, particularly in areas where semaphores or old colour lights are still used. Are these too small-scale?

 

[cle]

The project is the city centre junction deconfliction work to reduce delays and restore the paths for the services they cut couple of years back. Salford Central platform works are also separately starting imminently, finally.

Please elaborate - which paths out of where / through where? And which junction work?

I did see about Salford Central, which is great news. It’s unclear if it’s just refurbing the existing platforms or the full reinstatement (very much hope so) - a fifth platform revival might even allow some train turning west, much needed in Manc as we all know.

But Oxford Road and 15/16 still in the too hard pile?

 

[The Planner]

None of this mentions resignalling, particularly in areas where semaphores or old colour lights are still used. Are these too small-scale?

They are just NR renewals most of the time and fall under the funds given for a control period. They change all the time anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==

Please elaborate - which paths out of where / through where? And which junction work?

I did see about Salford Central, which is great news. It’s unclear if it’s just refurbing the existing platforms or the full reinstatement (very much hope so) - a fifth platform revival might even allow some train turning west, much needed in Manc as we all know.

But Oxford Road and 15/16 still in the too hard pile?

Oxford Road is being developed, I wouldn't hold your breath on 15/16

 

[WAO]

It's not absurd that the planning process takes longer than construction. In the past there's been many a project overrun wildly on both cost and time due to inadequate preparation. Only the very biggest projects with the highest impacts actually have public inquiries anyway.

I would agree if it were the technical design and other preparation that required the time to be spent. Having participated in planning enquiries, I have not found it to be so.

WAO

 

[WatcherZero]

Please elaborate - which paths out of where / through where? And which junction work?

I did see about Salford Central, which is great news. It’s unclear if it’s just refurbing the existing platforms or the full reinstatement (very much hope so) - a fifth platform revival might even allow some train turning west, much needed in Manc as we all know.

But Oxford Road and 15/16 still in the too hard pile?

This should explain the timetable changes:

https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/documents/s2800/Manchester%20Recovery%20Taskforce%20RNC.pdf

This gives a broad view of the infrastructure, no final scheme defined yet as far as I know.

https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/documents/s4262/Appendix%201%20Manchester%20Blueprint%20for%20Services%20and%20Infrastructure.pdf

And finally this should explain the junction conflicts and some possible interventions.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Castlefield-Corridor-Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Analysis-060920.pdf

 

[SynthD]

Indeed. It's pretty insane. I paid attention to a road project close to me - the A303 dualling near Sparkford. There are 111 environmental reports, for 3 miles of road. The Cultural Heritage report alone runs to 170 pages. The planning costs (£45m) add up to more per mile than France can build the actual road for. I'm all in favour of protecting the environment and being completely aware of what may be lost, but it seems that the balance is all wrong

The other way of looking at that is why are they pushing ahead with such an expensive project, does it still meet BCR requirements?

 

[Magdalia]

It's not absurd that the planning process takes longer than construction. In the past there's been many a project overrun wildly on both cost and time due to inadequate preparation. Only the very biggest projects with the highest impacts actually have public inquiries anyway.

This reminds me of the famous Abraham Lincoln quote: "if I had six hours to chop down a tree then I would spend the first four hours sharpening my axe".

 

[CdBrux]

The other way of looking at that is why are they pushing ahead with such an expensive project, does it still meet BCR requirements?

Or if you scaled back the 'need' for such detailed reports that are not part of planning to build the project you would get things done quicker and cheaper and improve the BCR and improve our productivity as well

 

[stuu]

The other way of looking at that is why are they pushing ahead with such an expensive project, does it still meet BCR requirements?

They would have know the rough cost of the planning beforehand, so it would have been included in the cost estimates. It shouldn't be an expensive project, it's just three miles of dual carriageway in not very challenging countryside. The sort of thing which even twenty years ago only cost £3m a mile, and is now £40m or thereabouts

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Little bit more detail added to the simple list included in the growth plan in #1

https://assets.publishing.service.g...owth-plan-2022-transport-projects.csv/preview

 

[Verulamius]

Little bit more detail added to the simple list included in the growth plan in #1

https://assets.publishing.service.g...owth-plan-2022-transport-projects.csv/preview

Thanks.

East West Rail is confirmed as stages 2 and 3.

Extension of East West Rail services from Oxford to Bedford (Connection Stage 2, upgrade existing Marston Vale Line railway) and provision of a new railway line between Bedford and Cambridge (Connection Stage 3), enabling East West Rail services to run between Oxford and Cambridge as well as towns and cities in between. The project is currently in design.

 

[Snow1964]

Thorpe Park - What is this development? I don't recall hearing about anything rail-related before now.

Two platform station with footbridge and lifts east of Leeds on the Leeds to York line. The station will also have a 500 space car park. The Station will have a two trains per hour service. This is a Restoring Your Railways scheme.

The growth plan 2022: transport infrastructure projects identified for acceleration - GOV.UK

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

 

[Starmill]

Or if you scaled back the 'need' for such detailed reports that are not part of planning to build the project you would get things done quicker and cheaper and improve the BCR and improve our productivity as well

Yes but you wouldn't. You'd build the wrong projects.

 

[snowball]

Little bit more detail added to the simple list included in the growth plan in #1

https://assets.publishing.service.g...owth-plan-2022-transport-projects.csv/preview

That document seems to have gone away again within a few hours of appearing. Is anything equivalent still online?

 

[Noddy]

Indeed. It's pretty insane. I paid attention to a road project close to me - the A303 dualling near Sparkford. There are 111 environmental reports, for 3 miles of road. The Cultural Heritage report alone runs to 170 pages. The planning costs (£45m) add up to more per mile than France can build the actual road for. I'm all in favour of protecting the environment and being completely aware of what may be lost, but it seems that the balance is all wrong

They would have know the rough cost of the planning beforehand, so it would have been included in the cost estimates. It shouldn't be an expensive project, it's just three miles of dual carriageway in not very challenging countryside. The sort of thing which even twenty years ago only cost £3m a mile, and is now £40m or thereabouts

Sorry to go slight off topic but wondering why the heritage report is so big I thought id do a quick check of the National Heritage List map viewer. It might only be three miles but this dual carriageway cuts through a Grade II Registered Park and Garden and passes directly adjacent to a Scheduled Monument, the boundary of which appears to abut the existing road. So it’s hardly surprising that the report is extensive.

 

[76020]

That document seems to have gone away again within a few hours of appearing. Is anything equivalent still online?

Try this one

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1105989/CCS207_CCS0822746402-001_SECURE_HMT_Autumn_Statement_2022_BOOK_Web_Accessible.pdf

 

[Wolfie]

It's absurd that the planning and enquiry process takes much longer than the construction phase. There should be a guillotine on such stages which clearing out the EU rules will help, although it was probably the UK's rigid interpretation of these that caused the problem, a goldmine for the many
parasite "professions" that serviced the process.

WAO

We don't, thankfully, live in China where schemes can be imposed on people despite massively detrimental impacts on their lives. Expect more judicial reviews if HMG goes down this route.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2022 ==

bearing in mind that a guillotine could mean a no.

Yup

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2022 ==

It's not absurd that the planning process takes longer than construction. In the past there's been many a project overrun wildly on both cost and time due to inadequate preparation. Only the very biggest projects with the highest impacts actually have public inquiries anyway.

Thank you for introducing a little sanity.

 

[WAO]

No one is suggesting a "Chinese" planning system - just that the planning inquiry should not extend beyond the projected construction period, typically two years. That's time to make & consider the case for traffic projections, bats, newts, trees etc without valueless procrastination.

If a such a guillotine says no then at least we will know sooner rather than (expensively) later. We cannot spend our money twice and we have a vast infrastructure "wants" list, not to mention elderly care and social housing.

The likely causes of project and cost over-runs were not usually issues challenged at inquiries, although perhaps more detailed competent debate on such technical matters could improve the Inspector's final report.

WAO

 

[BrianW]

Many of the road schemes are not

Many of the road schemes are not minor. The A66 is the best part of a billion pounds. Stonehenge is a big scheme. A417 Air Balloon, North Hykeham Relief Road (completing an outer ring road for Lincoln), A1 Morpeth to Ellingham, A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbett, A358 Taunton to Southfields are all big schemes. One or two of the others may be big, I'm not sure. They've thrown together a load of schemes of different sizes. But I suspect most of them will not happen much faster than they would have done anyway.

AIUI the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham was already at the stage of the DCO inspectors report being with the minister for approval, but in June it was announced he’d asked for an extra 6 months to consider it.

So that should be easy to get back on timetable, and just sheer luck that it’s right in the new transport minister’s constituency. So it’s a case of “look at us, we’re now accelerating things we’d only just been intentionally delaying”.

Two Three ways ahead?
a. Identify and clarify issue(s) > Identify Options > Appraise Options > Make Recommendation > Decision > Plan and Implement
b. Identify potential 'solution' > 'Whose' constituency? = Announce Decision and get started sharpish!
c. Newts, bats, SSSIs before cars vital Union Connectivity?

 

[Starmill]

No one is suggesting a "Chinese" planning system - just that the planning inquiry should not extend beyond the projected construction period, typically two years. That's time to make & consider the case for traffic projections, bats, newts, trees etc without valueless procrastination.

If a such a guillotine says no then at least we will know sooner rather than (expensively) later. We cannot spend our money twice and we have a vast infrastructure "wants" list, not to mention elderly care and social housing.

The likely causes of project and cost over-runs were not usually issues challenged at inquiries, although perhaps more detailed competent debate on such technical matters could improve the Inspector's final report.

WAO

This is exactly what is already being done though. Narrowing these timescales is part of Project 'Speed'.

It remains to be seen whether this will actually result in better value for money. Some elements by definition take considerable time and cannot be speeded up because you'd be asking office staff to work weekends and Bank Holidays which generally won't be contracted.

 

[snowball]

Try this one

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1105989/CCS207_CCS0822746402-001_SECURE_HMT_Autumn_Statement_2022_BOOK_Web_Accessible.pdf

That's just the same as the original link and does not contain the relatively small pieces of information on individual infrastructure schemes that were briefly available yesterday.

 

[WAO]

Sections 3.34 - 3.36 refer.

WAO