The time it takes to design, approve & build infrastructure projects

[richieb1971]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #116 originally from this thread.

My perception of why things take too long in the UK to build (especially new railways) is because we continuously make do with what infrastructure we have. Almost everything we use in the UK currently is full to capacity at times meaning delays, over crowding, traffic jams and more often than not no alternatives. This means the thing we lose as individuals is "TIME", it takes longer to get anywhere when we don't invest. The EWR project is close to my heart because the 60's robbed Bedford of its east west connections. We had Northampton and Oxford going west and Cambridge and Hitchin to the East. Now we have Bletchley going west which survived by the skin of its teeth. If that had not survived this project would be a non starter and it worries me that the vale line is considered under spec and there is talk of only utilizing small portions of it. If you look at all the East west connections in the country, apart from the GWR which is in alignment with London has had any investment to speak of. The March-Peterborough line still has level crossings that are manned and semaphore signals and that is quite a busy line especially with the freight traffic.

EWR for me is a project which says "North south isn't the only way traffic goes anymore". Lets invest in east west connections whether it be road or rail. For me, EWR is the spear head project which will allow easier connectivity to anywhere by rail. I can't say if EWR is deserved of government funding above all else, but in the grand scheme of things its a project sitting on the back burner for years and years. The original website stated that EWR would open early 2020's if I'm not mistaken (don't shoot me I'm only trying to recollect in my memory banks). The project as I see it hasn't really started until I see photographic evidence of work going on which facilitates the connection of Bicester to Bletchley. It would be nice to see this project move on beyond the point of no return and we ain't there yet. Sadly.

 

[D1009]

My perception of why things take too long in the UK to build (especially new railways) is because we continuously make do with what infrastructure we have. Almost everything we use in the UK currently is full to capacity at times meaning delays, over crowding, traffic jams and more often than not no alternatives. This means the thing we lose as individuals is "TIME", it takes longer to get anywhere when we don't invest. The EWR project is close to my heart because the 60's robbed Bedford of its east west connections. We had Northampton and Oxford going west and Cambridge and Hitchin to the East. Now we have Bletchley going west which survived by the skin of its teeth. If that had not survived this project would be a non starter and it worries me that the vale line is considered under spec and there is talk of only utilizing small portions of it. If you look at all the East west connections in the country, apart from the GWR which is in alignment with London has had any investment to speak of. The March-Peterborough line still has level crossings that are manned and semaphore signals and that is quite a busy line especially with the freight traffic.

EWR for me is a project which says "North south isn't the only way traffic goes anymore". Lets invest in east west connections whether it be road or rail. For me, EWR is the spear head project which will allow easier connectivity to anywhere by rail. I can't say if EWR is deserved of government funding above all else, but in the grand scheme of things its a project sitting on the back burner for years and years. The original website stated that EWR would open early 2020's if I'm not mistaken (don't shoot me I'm only trying to recollect in my memory banks). The project as I see it hasn't really started until I see photographic evidence of work going on which facilitates the connection of Bicester to Bletchley. It would be nice to see this project move on beyond the point of no return and we ain't there yet. Sadly.

I agree 100%. It is one of the projects that had much going for it until the government suddenly realised because of various reasons such as PRM modifications to stock, different standards regarding electrification clearances, NR being unable to deliver projects anywhere near the dates to which it had committed, investment in rail has become more difficult to sell to the wider population/electorate.

 

[DarloRich]

The project as I see it hasn't really started until I see photographic evidence of work going on which facilitates the connection of Bicester to Bletchley. It would be nice to see this project move on beyond the point of no return and we ain't there yet. Sadly.

I agree 100%. It is one of the projects that had much going for it until the government suddenly realised because of various reasons such as PRM modifications to stock, different standards regarding electrification clearances, NR being unable to deliver projects anywhere near the dates to which it had committed, investment in rail has become more difficult to sell to the wider population/electorate.

The above statements are simply incorrect. Railway projects are delivered via the GRIP process ( look it up). That is an 8 stage project lifecycle. In only one stage will you see physical work. You seem to think that in the other 7 stages nothing is happening.

 

[Tobbes]

It's clear that plenty is going on, and given the amount of public money that is going to be spent here, it is quite right that the alternatives are fleshed out and an options analysis is conducted.

For all the reasons outlined in this thread, I think it is most likely that this will be the Marston Vale line west of Bedford. East of Bedford, this is even more important as getting to Sandy has a range of options and very significant costs. And it is critical to maximising value for money to get MML connectivity right. If this takes time, so be it.

 

[richieb1971]

The above statements are simply incorrect. Railway projects are delivered via the GRIP process ( look it up). That is an 8 stage project lifecycle. In only one stage will you see physical work. You seem to think that in the other 7 stages nothing is happening.

Ok, so in comparison to the 10 years this project has been in a presumed GRIP state of 1-7, how long was the WCML electrification in the 1960's in the GRIP state of 1-7, or the ECML or the GWR? Much bigger projects. I think the whole GRIP process of 1-8 would have been completed in the same amount of time and we can quite honestly say that half of that time it would have been on GRIP 8.

Lets not analyze the GRIP process, lets compare projects, how big they are and how long it took from end to end.

This EWR project is stuck on a GRIP process because the EWR is a slot machine which nobody has money to gamble with so they won't play. That may have changed recently, but there was definitely a delay somewhere in the last year otherwise this thread would have been buzzing.

 

[DarloRich]

Ok, so in comparison to the 10 years this project has been in a presumed GRIP state of 1-7, how long was the WCML electrification in the 1960's in the GRIP state of 1-7, or the ECML or the GWR? Much bigger projects. I think the whole GRIP process of 1-8 would have been completed in the same amount of time and we can quite honestly say that half of that time it would have been on GRIP 8.

You have no idea what the process is have you? Did you go away and read about it like I suggested?

Also where do you get 10 years from? you seem to see articles in the paper and assume that is the starting point of a project! You have no idea.

Lets not analyze the GRIP process, lets compare projects, how big they are and how long it took from end to end.

This EWR project is stuck on a GRIP process because the EWR is a slot machine which nobody has money to gamble with so they won't play. That may have changed recently, but there was definitely a delay somewhere in the last year otherwise this thread would have been buzzing.

In the last year there has been a great deal of stakeholder consultation. That is required by law in order to secure the right to build the line. That is dull and boring but it is essential. Sorry.

In the last year there has been a great deal of change around funding, around how the project will be delivered, in the sponsorship arrangements, in the specification, in the scope, in the client relationships as well as changes to the design and decisions to make about crossings and structures. As far as you are concerned this is all dull and boring but it is clear that you have no understanding of why these are issues.

It is obvious that you only recognise physical work and being part of a project. That is incredibly short sighted and frankly wrong.

 

[HowardGWR]

Publicly available info, (ie the June 18 EDP update), says Grip 3 was complete in Jul 17, and Grip 4 will complete Dec 19.

Perhaps remind that this is 'single option development'. 2 1/2 years is a long time and I can't imagine how one would know if that was optimistic or otherwise. After GWML leccy, I don't think these estimates can be considered very reliable, frankly, and GRIP 5 could throw up even more adders in the development grass.

 

[a_c_skinner]

GRIP is a way of adding interminable delay dressed up as an essential process. It is the culture of rail in the UK to move cautiously to a fault. Lost GRIP seems to be a summary of where a lot of projects are. Even after this interminable process we face overruns and overspends when at the very least you'd expect careful planning to largely avoid this.

 

[swt_passenger]

Perhaps remind that this is 'single option development'. 2 1/2 years is a long time and I can't imagine how one would know if that was optimistic or otherwise. After GWML leccy, I don't think these estimates can be considered very reliable, frankly, and GRIP 5 could throw up even more adders in the development grass.

Perhaps they are awaiting the outcome of the TWA application. There must come a stage where detailed design cannot start or continue if there is a possibility the TWA inspector is going to be proposing modifications...

 

[deltic]

It always staggers me that on the modest number of occasions when the cost-benefit analysis stacks up, you know, essential to the nation, bound to pay us back, excellent idea etc. that it then takes ages and ages to even start building let alone finish it. This is of course OT because it applies to all rail projects, not just E-W rail.

I'm 63 so any project people now talk about (even the 769s apparently) I'll not live to see.

Of course the cost benefit analysis may show that the scheme does not stack up!! There are plenty of road schemes with very impressive benefit cost ratios that dont get built either

 

[a_c_skinner]

impressive benefit cost ratios that dont get built either

Absolutely, it is the ponderous processes that consume years on the ones that do get built that I worry about.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ok, so in comparison to the 10 years this project has been in a presumed GRIP state of 1-7, how long was the WCML electrification in the 1960's in the GRIP state of 1-7, or the ECML or the GWR? Much bigger projects. I think the whole GRIP process of 1-8 would have been completed in the same amount of time and we can quite honestly say that half of that time it would have been on GRIP 8.

Lets not analyze the GRIP process, lets compare projects, how big they are and how long it took from end to end.

This EWR project is stuck on a GRIP process because the EWR is a slot machine which nobody has money to gamble with so they won't play. That may have changed recently, but there was definitely a delay somewhere in the last year otherwise this thread would have been buzzing.

ECML electrification was in the equivalent of GRIP 1-3 for about 5 years. It took nearly a year to get through the DfT authority process. And from when it was ‘authorised’, (at the equivalent of GRIP 3/4) it was another year before serious work started, and a further 6 before it was finished.

Perhaps remind that this is 'single option development'. 2 1/2 years is a long time and I can't imagine how one would know if that was optimistic or otherwise. After GWML leccy, I don't think these estimates can be considered very reliable, frankly, and GRIP 5 could throw up even more adders in the development grass.

Perhaps they are awaiting the outcome of the TWA application. There must come a stage where detailed design cannot start or continue if there is a possibility the TWA inspector is going to be proposing modifications...

You can’t complete GRIP 3 (single option) until you have your principal consents confirmed.

 

[swt_passenger]

ECML electrification was in the equivalent of GRIP 1-3 for about 5 years. It took nearly a year to get through the DfT authority process. And from when it was ‘authorised’, (at the equivalent of GRIP 3/4) it was another year before serious work started, and a further 6 before it was finished.
[…]
You can’t complete GRIP 3 (single option) until you have your principal consents confirmed.

That’s what surprised me about the dates I took from the latest EDP update.

 

[Bald Rick]

That’s what surprised me about the dates I took from the latest EDP update.

You can of course start single option design and detailed design without principal consent confirmed, but there is then the risk that something gets changed. Had the chap at Ordsall got his way, all the detailed design would have gone in the bin, and it would have been back to square 2.

 

[DarloRich]

GRIP is a way of adding interminable delay dressed up as an essential process. It is the culture of rail in the UK to move cautiously to a fault. Lost GRIP seems to be a summary of where a lot of projects are. Even after this interminable process we face overruns and overspends when at the very least you'd expect careful planning to largely avoid this.

oh dear - Another statement that simply isnt true. I find it amazing how often the same posters are happy to criticise the waste of tax payers money yet seem very keen to try and waste taxpayers money. It is bizarre.

You can’t complete GRIP 3 (single option) until you have your principal consents confirmed.

And it is worth noting that single option selection is much more than getting out a map and a red crayon and drawing a line!

 

[a_c_skinner]

oh dear - Another statement that simply isnt true. I find it amazing how often the same posters are happy to criticise the waste of tax payers money yet seem very keen to try and waste taxpayers money.

You may be right, but there is face validity to an assertion (mine) that the process takes far longer than it needs to, simply because it takes years and years. My unease is not that planning isn't needed but that each stage takes so long so projects are interminable. E-W rail is a good example. First mooted in about 1995 (Wiki knowledge), likely to open in part by 2025, over largely existing railway with all (I think) studies and almost all consultations highly supportive. I'm always clear I am not a railway professional (think thermos, anorak, dictaphone, ABC) but surely no one can defend that as prudent management? The actual build time could be about two years.

 

[DarloRich]

You may be right, but there is face validity to an assertion (mine) that the process takes far longer than it needs to, simply because it takes years and years. My unease is not that planning isn't needed but that each stage takes so long so projects are interminable. E-W rail is a good example. First mooted in about 1995 (Wiki knowledge), likely to open in part by 2025, over largely existing railway with all (I think) studies and almost all consultations highly supportive. I'm always clear I am not a railway professional (think thermos, anorak, dictaphone, ABC) but surely no one can defend that as prudent management? The actual build time could be about two years.

But you and others overlook many of the issues. There are 3 key ones to my mind:

The first of those is funding. It might have been suggested as a railway project since 1995 but when was funding agreed? Is funding clear even today? That is the reality of relying on public finance. This is the key issue. No money: no work. To get that money you have to prove value for money at each stage. Funding isn't given for GRIP 1-8. For a project this big funding will be given for only 1 or 2 stages. Each section requires a robust business case and intense scrutiny over value for money before passing to the next stage. (It is also worth nothing that railway funding runs in 5 year cycles without the ability to pass money forward into the next.)

The second issue is statutory consultation - You might think "all consultations highly supportive". That makes no difference. Statutory consultation takes time and cant be avoided. it is dull, boring and tedious but crucial. That helps lock down your scope and make clear what is to be delivered. That helps confirm your funding requirements. That also get you your T&W order. You cant start work without that.

The third is delivery methodology & sponsorship arrangements. That has changed several times. Is it even clear today who will deliver the works and how? Is it clear what sort of contracting arrangement will be used to deliver the work? Without a clear and obvious sponsor it is very difficult to get issues dealt with and bottlenecks overcome. I am not convinced the sponsorship arrangements are clear. That is our friends at DfT again.

I also challenge the assumption that the proposed railway runs "over largely existing railway". That is incorrect. The section between Bletchley and Claydon is incomplete and has not seen a train for many years. There is a gap of several miles where the track has been pinched. There are earth work issues and subsidence problems in places. it requires a complete rebuild. The section between Bletchley and Bedford is not suitable for anything more than low speed branch line services and occasional freight at higher speeds. It has to be rebuilt completely and i suspect the signalling upgraded. The crossings have to be eliminated. It isn't simply a wash and brush up. It is an entirely new line built to modern standards.

All of this takes time and while it can certainly be done sooner and quicker that increase in speed needs a clear funding source and agreed delivery methodology. Get that from the government if you can!

 

[Tobbes]

The first of those is funding. It might have been suggested as a railway project since 1995 but when was funding agreed? Is funding clear even today? That is the reality of relying on public finance. This is the key issue. No money: no work. To get that money you have to prove value for money at each stage. Funding isn't given for GRIP 1-8. For a project this big funding will be given for only 1 or 2 stages. Each section requires a robust business case and intense scrutiny over value for money before passing to the next stage. (It is also worth nothing that railway funding runs in 5 year cycles without the ability to pass money forward into the next.)

Agreed. So let's ask the question another way. If DfT and HMT said "as a matter of national priority, please build us a Cambridge Bedford Bletchley Oxford twin track electrified railway to W10 loading guage and a express time of not more than 75 mins from Oxford to Cambs and we'll pay whatever it takes" how long would the statutory elements take, and how soon would the railway open?

 

[Class 170101]

I also challenge the assumption that the proposed railway runs "over largely existing railway". That is incorrect. The section between Bletchley and Claydon is incomplete and has not seen a train for many years. There is a gap of several miles where the track has been pinched. There are earth work issues and subsidence problems in places. it requires a complete rebuild. The section between Bletchley and Bedford is not suitable for anything more than low speed branch line services and occasional freight at higher speeds. It has to be rebuilt completely and i suspect the signalling upgraded. The crossings have to be eliminated. It isn't simply a wash and brush up. It is an entirely new line built to modern standards.

The railway rights are what exists and should take less time than say the eastern section from Bedford to Cambridge which will be brand new railway. It might be more appropriate to say mothballed railway. I believe that there are issues concerning Claydon LNE Junction area where the line was built in the Second World War and no consents were obtained (for obvious reasons).

 

[Class 170101]

GRIP is a way of adding interminable delay dressed up as an essential process. It is the culture of rail in the UK to move cautiously to a fault. Lost GRIP seems to be a summary of where a lot of projects are. Even after this interminable process we face overruns and overspends when at the very least you'd expect careful planning to largely avoid this.

I am afraid this has been like this for a long long time. I know people involved in Crossrail dating back to 1991 and before. It should open fully by December 2019, so one can see how long this scheme has been going on for.

 

[jyte]

I am afraid this has been like this for a long long time. I know people involved in Crossrail dating back to 1991 and before. It should open fully by December 2019, so one can see how long this scheme has been going on for.

And HS2 has been going on since before 2010, 2007 I think?

Heathrow Terminal 5 was first mooted in 1982, officially proposed in 1992, and broke ground in 2002. 20 years for an airport terminal...

Large scale infrastructure projects take time in this country, it's just the way it is.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agreed. So let's ask the question another way. If DfT and HMT said "as a matter of national priority, please build us a Cambridge Bedford Bletchley Oxford twin track electrified railway to W10 loading guage and a express time of not more than 75 mins from Oxford to Cambs and we'll pay whatever it takes" how long would the statutory elements take, and how soon would the railway open?

Fron a standing start:

2-3 years prep before the consents process starts, which should include 2 rounds of consultation (latter of which is a statutory consultation).

2 years (at best) for the primary consents process, including examination in public / inquiry

1 year minimum from primary consent being granted to mobilise, to include land assembly, obtaining initial secondary consents

3-4 years construction (relatively short due to lack of major civils on EWR)

6 months entry into service integration / testing / commissioning.

So 9 years at best start to finish.

 

[Tobbes]

Fron a standing start:

2-3 years prep before the consents process starts, which should include 2 rounds of consultation (latter fo which is a statutory consultation).

2 years (at best) for the primary consents process, including examination in public / inquiry

1 year minimum from primary consent being granted to mobilise, to include land assembly, obtaining initial secondary consents

3-4 years construction (relatively short due to lack of major civils on EWR)

6 months entry into service integration / testing / commissioning.

So 9 years at best start to finish.

Thanks Bald Rick, that's about what I expected. What I don't know is how we can speed it up without trampling all over people's rights and the opportunity to get buy in for the process as a whole.

 

[Bald Rick]

And HS2 has been going on since before 2010, 2007 I think?

Heathrow Terminal 5 was first mooted in 1982, officially proposed in 1992, and broke ground in 2002. 20 years for an airport terminal...

Large scale infrastructure projects take time in this country, it's just the way it is.

They take time in most democracies. We are comparatively rapid. The recently opened LGV SEA fr9m Tours to Bordeaux was proposed by SNCF in 1992, first consultation in 1994, primary consent granted in 2009, opened in 2017. The continuation to the Spanish border was consulted 12 years ago, and there is still no agreement for it to be built. In Germany it takes far longer.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks Bald Rick, that's about what I expected. What I don't know is how we can speed it up without trampling all over people's rights and the opportunity to get buy in for the process as a whole.

Well it is my specialised subject.

I didn’t mention - the timescales quoted assume a positive and supportive political environment at all levels.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am afraid this has been like this for a long long time. I know people involved in Crossrail dating back to 1991 and before. It should open fully by December 2019, so one can see how long this scheme has been going on for.

Crossrail dates back to the 1930s if you look hard enough.

 

[Class 170101]

Crossrail dates back to the 1930s if you look hard enough.

That doesn't surprise me having seen references to it during the Second World War as project for after the war had finished.

What would interest me though is how long it took the M25 (or another road scheme if you prefer) from idea to opening.

 

[B&I]

But you and others overlook many of the issues. There are 3 key ones to my mind:

The first of those is funding. It might have been suggested as a railway project since 1995 but when was funding agreed? Is funding clear even today? That is the reality of relying on public finance. This is the key issue. No money: no work. To get that money you have to prove value for money at each stage. Funding isn't given for GRIP 1-8. For a project this big funding will be given for only 1 or 2 stages. Each section requires a robust business case and intense scrutiny over value for money before passing to the next stage. (It is also worth nothing that railway funding runs in 5 year cycles without the ability to pass money forward into the next.)

The second issue is statutory consultation - You might think "all consultations highly supportive". That makes no difference. Statutory consultation takes time and cant be avoided. it is dull, boring and tedious but crucial. That helps lock down your scope and make clear what is to be delivered. That helps confirm your funding requirements. That also get you your T&W order. You cant start work without that.

The third is delivery methodology & sponsorship arrangements. That has changed several times. Is it even clear today who will deliver the works and how? Is it clear what sort of contracting arrangement will be used to deliver the work? Without a clear and obvious sponsor it is very difficult to get issues dealt with and bottlenecks overcome. I am not convinced the sponsorship arrangements are clear. That is our friends at DfT again.

I also challenge the assumption that the proposed railway runs "over largely existing railway". That is incorrect. The section between Bletchley and Claydon is incomplete and has not seen a train for many years. There is a gap of several miles where the track has been pinched. There are earth work issues and subsidence problems in places. it requires a complete rebuild. The section between Bletchley and Bedford is not suitable for anything more than low speed branch line services and occasional freight at higher speeds. It has to be rebuilt completely and i suspect the signalling upgraded. The crossings have to be eliminated. It isn't simply a wash and brush up. It is an entirely new line built to modern standards.

All of this takes time and while it can certainly be done sooner and quicker that increase in speed needs a clear funding source and agreed delivery methodology. Get that from the government if you can!

It sounds as if it is the bureaucracy surrounding the whole process (and I include within that issues of funding etc) which slows things down a lot more than the technical side, or the actual construction

 

[Bald Rick]

That doesn't surprise me having seen references to it during the Second World War as project for after the war had finished.

What would interest me though is how long it took the M25 (or another road scheme if you prefer) from idea to opening.

M25:

First proposed in 1913, more seriously in 1937, again in Abercrombie’s report of 1944, then again in GLCs ringways report of the 60s, which was taken forward (sort of). First few sections built 1973-76, most of the rest then built in stages 1979-1986.

In terms of process, the timescales are exactly the same, except for construction. Because road schemes don’t need signalling, electrification, or integration testing, their construction is usually in the 18-30 month timescale (for any given section), unless here are very major civils (eg Queensferry Crossing).

Although it’s not always that quick - regular users of the MK to Northampton section of the M1 should note that there are 4 years of roadworks starting in the next few weeks, to enable all lane running. Which added to the 13 miles of roadworks between Coventry and Coleshill means that over a third of the route from the M25 to Birmingham will have roadworks... time for rail to advertise accordingly!

 

[Hadders]

Although it’s not always that quick - regular users of the MK to Northampton section of the M1 should note that there are 4 years of roadworks starting in the next few weeks, to enable all lane running. Which added to the 13 miles of roadworks between Coventry and Coleshill means that over a third of the route from the M25 to Birmingham will have roadworks... time for rail to advertise accordingly!

Tell me about it - four years!!! I had to drive to the Haydock area a couple of weeks ago. I lost count of the number of sets of roadworks - I think it was 6.