Oddly it’s not in the HE plans. I think the stretch from 15-16 has less traffic, presumably because so many people want to go to the cultural delights of Stoke on Trent.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The time it takes to design, approve & build infrastructure projects
- Thread starter richieb1971
- Start date
- Status
Oddly it’s not in the HE plans. I think the stretch from 15-16 has less traffic, presumably because so many people want to go to the cultural delights of Stoke on Trent.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,701
Thank you. We will differ on if you've described the problem or the reason, a bit of both perhaps. I'm not sure when iterative becomes repetitive, but thank you for taking the time. 
.
.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,465
There is no war. Move on please.
Talk of inefficiencies and democracy is one thing, but try and keep things in perspective without the hysteria please.
Talk of inefficiencies and democracy is one thing, but try and keep things in perspective without the hysteria please.
If you say so. My view was that it was down to this country's entirely overt addiction to private motor transport
johnnychips
Established Member
OT, but you will be delighted to know about a third of it has now been approved, bypassing Mottram but not Hollingworth or Tintwistle.
Perhaps a bit more on topic, there has been discussion about the consultation needed in our democracy. Is this excessive or valuable? The above scheme involved having to seriously listen to proposals to put lorries on trains and take them through a reopened Woodhead Tunnel...a proposal that, even on this Forum, everybody shot down.
Oh and thanks to Bald Rick for his excellent explanation.
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 2,047
Thank you bald Rick. Sounds like a firewall is placed at every step and password required to pass that particular step. Lots of dotting I,s and crossing t,s. It's obvious that the UK in its finest days of building didn't have the burden of such legislations.
Well they did, but the process was rather different, and not everyone had the ability or wherewithal to petition against a scheme. Those that could, did, hence why the WCML neatly avoids Northampton (amongst many examples). Also why many railway funders lost their money, as they didn’t, or couldn’t make the necessary checks.
Whilst the processes (DCO, TWA or Hybrid Bill) have changed a little, the principles of the process are unchanged for the best part of a century; for example the building of the motorway network followed the same principles.
To put a different perspective on it - would you sign a contract with a builder for an extension on your house before you knew how much it would cost? Or before the bank would lend you the money? Or before you had planning permission?
Or if the council decided to build part of a new school on your back garden, for the benefit of all the community, would you want an opportunity to make comments to the proposer?
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,373
To put a different perspective on it - would you sign a contract with a builder for an extension on your house:
1)before you knew how much it would cost? ...SoS has apparently costed
2)Or before the bank would lend you the money?..SoS has underwritten
Or 3) before you had planning permission?..SoS has determined the project in national interest.Planning permission should be automatic
1)before you knew how much it would cost? ...SoS has apparently costed
2)Or before the bank would lend you the money?..SoS has underwritten
Or 3) before you had planning permission?..SoS has determined the project in national interest.Planning permission should be automatic
This project is backed by a very active group of councils etc who have been fighting very had to get to the situation now. The company now preparing the act is led by people who are charged with getting it built to set timescale.It all takes time but its a shame no wires are going up this is a mistake and will cause problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
1) no he hasn’t
2) no he hasn’t
3) no he hasn’t (indeed he can’t ‘determine’ such things without following the consents process); and no it shouldn’t (and it isn’t planning permission).
By way of further advice on the subject, it is worth looking at the TWA Order made today for the Werrington grade separation.
The application for the Order was made in December 2016. The public inquiry was held in November 2017, 11 months later. There were three objections st the inquiry (all others having been resolved previously); 2 of which weren’t actually objections but wanted conditions made on the plans. The Order was made today, 19 months after the application was made. Compare to the schedule I laid out earlier.
The application for the Order was made in December 2016. The public inquiry was held in November 2017, 11 months later. There were three objections st the inquiry (all others having been resolved previously); 2 of which weren’t actually objections but wanted conditions made on the plans. The Order was made today, 19 months after the application was made. Compare to the schedule I laid out earlier.
Class 170101
On Moderation
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,662
Thanks to @Bald Rick for his contributions. I was mainly trying to see whether or not Road schemes had faster progress than rail schemes but it seems not. However I think if we aren't careful we will suddenly find schemes that were of use 10 years ago coming into service just as they aren't needed. I can think of two railway schemes that come to mind, those being the Settle and Carlisle re-signalling (more block sections) and the Joan Croft Bridge over the ECML north of Doncaster. Both built with coal traffic in mind that has virtually ceased upon their opening.
There has been talk of such a bypass since before construction of the M67 started.
Wrong. The Mottram bypass is the main surviving part of the TransPennine Upgrade Programme, which has yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, as their website shows:
https://infrastructure.planninginsp...s/north-west/trans-pennine-upgrade-programme/
Road schemes have to go through many stages, and the press tends to describe each one in the same terms, using phrases like "gets the green light", so it's understandable that people may get confused.
Andyjs247
Member
I have read the comparisons with road schemes with interest. Whilst the general consensus seems that the process and timescales is similar, I would like to draw attention to the proposed Cambridge to Oxford Expressway. Around these parts there is much consternation about the route of said Expressway between Milton Keynes/M1 Junction 13 and Oxford.
In broad terms the process for this part of the Expressway ought to be similar to that for delivery of EWR between Bedford and Cambridge in that there will need to be a new route. But while I can find details of the analysis used in determination of the preferred corridor via Sandy for EWR; the equivalent analysis for the the Expressway is missing. Public consultation on the road scheme is so far missing, period!
It seems there are 3 broad corridors for the road - One option would see the A421 improved beyond Milton Keynes via Buckingham and Finmere to where it would follow the A4421 towards Bicester. It would pass Bicester somewhere to the south and link with the A41 and the M40 at Junction 9. From there the route is along the A34 to Oxford and beyond.
A 2nd option would broadly follow the route of EWR between Milton Keynes via Winslow and Bicester. It would pass close to the south of Bicester from where there are different options; either via the A34 or a more southerly routing to the south and east of Oxford.
A 3rd more southerly option would be south of the East West railway, with a routing broadly via the A418 closer to Leighton Buzzard, Aylesbury, Haddenham and Thame. Then it follows the A329 across the M40 and eventually west to the A34, probably somewhere between Abingdon and Didcot.
Note that construction could begin on the section to Oxford (works on site by 2025) with an aim to open the route to traffic by 2030. The road is thought to cost in the region of £3.5bn. In particular England’s Economic Heartland (a voluntary partnership of councils and unelected local enterprise partnerships, in the growth corridor from Oxfordshire through Milton Keynes and to Cambridgeshire) will be commissioned to analyse it, and select a corridor before the public are presented with anything!
So the process and timescales are different!
In broad terms the process for this part of the Expressway ought to be similar to that for delivery of EWR between Bedford and Cambridge in that there will need to be a new route. But while I can find details of the analysis used in determination of the preferred corridor via Sandy for EWR; the equivalent analysis for the the Expressway is missing. Public consultation on the road scheme is so far missing, period!
It seems there are 3 broad corridors for the road - One option would see the A421 improved beyond Milton Keynes via Buckingham and Finmere to where it would follow the A4421 towards Bicester. It would pass Bicester somewhere to the south and link with the A41 and the M40 at Junction 9. From there the route is along the A34 to Oxford and beyond.
A 2nd option would broadly follow the route of EWR between Milton Keynes via Winslow and Bicester. It would pass close to the south of Bicester from where there are different options; either via the A34 or a more southerly routing to the south and east of Oxford.
A 3rd more southerly option would be south of the East West railway, with a routing broadly via the A418 closer to Leighton Buzzard, Aylesbury, Haddenham and Thame. Then it follows the A329 across the M40 and eventually west to the A34, probably somewhere between Abingdon and Didcot.
Note that construction could begin on the section to Oxford (works on site by 2025) with an aim to open the route to traffic by 2030. The road is thought to cost in the region of £3.5bn. In particular England’s Economic Heartland (a voluntary partnership of councils and unelected local enterprise partnerships, in the growth corridor from Oxfordshire through Milton Keynes and to Cambridgeshire) will be commissioned to analyse it, and select a corridor before the public are presented with anything!
So the process and timescales are different!
Many thanks to @Bald Rick for his excellent explanation. I look forward to reading more in your long awaited memoirs!
One example of a road scheme caught in development hell is the A14 upgrade between Cambridge and Huntingdon.
The proposed route was announced in October 2007, draft orders weren't published until October 2009, public enquiry was postponed in June 2010, with that iteration of the project cancelled in October 2010.
It was reinstated in the December 2011 National Infrastructure Plan, with an initial consultation running to the end of January 2012. A scheme options consultation was held in September 2013, pre-application consultation from April to June 2014. The Development Consent Order application was submitted in December 2014 and examined between May and November 2015, with the SoS decision published in May 2016.
Work on the ground started in March 2017 and is due for completion in 2020.
The proposed route was announced in October 2007, draft orders weren't published until October 2009, public enquiry was postponed in June 2010, with that iteration of the project cancelled in October 2010.
It was reinstated in the December 2011 National Infrastructure Plan, with an initial consultation running to the end of January 2012. A scheme options consultation was held in September 2013, pre-application consultation from April to June 2014. The Development Consent Order application was submitted in December 2014 and examined between May and November 2015, with the SoS decision published in May 2016.
Work on the ground started in March 2017 and is due for completion in 2020.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,701
Exactly a three year build taking 13 years to complete. That just seems, on the face of it, questionable. I'm not expecting 36 months from idea to opening of course but the balance seems lost. I suspect is the British obsession with paperwork to protect those involved from accusations of impropriety, little more. I spent my career in the NHS, tolerably high up from time to time. NHS does it all the time, iteration after iteration of paperwork and discussions, not changing things, but there if anyone asks how a decision was made. The Grenfell Tower business shows our national obsession with process - it was more important to sign off materials than chose and instal wisely. Better to have a public enquiry and consultations for years (and it will be years) than take the only and obvious step of banning flammable materials from housing. I am corrected (truly) that the delay shares between numerous agencies but it is still la vice anglais.
Dear Mrs B R
As agent to Bald Rick I am writing to you to obtain details of the hourly rates for Bald Rick to....
Highway schemes can take an age.
I was working oh a project once (didn't see it through to the end as I moved jobs), however a change to a fairly basic signal controlled T junction was agreed with the council at planning.
We undertake a detailed design of this job and submit to the council who turn around and say that's not what we want. 12 months later we weren't much further forwards than when we started.
Also the school that these works were associated with had opened and the children walking to school weren't benefiting from the improved crossing facilities.
In reality it should have been more than possible for the scheme to have been approved within a few months (even with all the required consultations) and built within a further few months. Even allowing for the council adding a few months to the process the 8 months there was before the school was due to open should have been easily achieved.
I could probably give other examples if I were to think about it, but that gives you an idea of what can happen to allow progress down. That's where the money from the developer was agreed at the start of the process and no need to go back and forth getting funding agreed.
I was working oh a project once (didn't see it through to the end as I moved jobs), however a change to a fairly basic signal controlled T junction was agreed with the council at planning.
We undertake a detailed design of this job and submit to the council who turn around and say that's not what we want. 12 months later we weren't much further forwards than when we started.
Also the school that these works were associated with had opened and the children walking to school weren't benefiting from the improved crossing facilities.
In reality it should have been more than possible for the scheme to have been approved within a few months (even with all the required consultations) and built within a further few months. Even allowing for the council adding a few months to the process the 8 months there was before the school was due to open should have been easily achieved.
I could probably give other examples if I were to think about it, but that gives you an idea of what can happen to allow progress down. That's where the money from the developer was agreed at the start of the process and no need to go back and forth getting funding agreed.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
That is why your scope and sponsorship need to be cock on. Posters here would set off with a scope saying: Build railway line and a red line on a map and then wonder why they run into challenges!
In the case above we thought that we had an agreed scope (agreed during planning). It was only when we went back that they said that they didn't have the resources to provide more than a basic response. However rather than say we think we want something like this and asked us to look at it they just agreed to what we'd shown.
Many thanks to @Bald Rick for his invaluable posts (and his patience). If I may, I'd like to add a couple of words on funding as one who used to be involved in public spending.
First, there is always more demand for public spending than there is money available. This is not a political comment, but everyone can think of something that will be wonderful and cost more than their personal taxes can fund - so there is rarely a meaningful upper limit.
Second, it would theoretically be possible to run a BCR over every piece of government spending and fund things on this basis - highest BCR first, lowest last and fund projects down the list until you run out of cash. But even if you could agree a methodology (you won't) then the results would probably be (i) primary and technical education (ii) pure science and engineering research (iii) infrastructure and (iv) healthcare for those below retirement. Health is an excellent example of a skewed 80/20 rule -half, and perhaps as much as 75% of medical spending is in someone's last year of life, which is clearly terrible value for money. So, we can save lots of cash by closing hospitals and not committing money to the elderly, and maxmise BCR in transport by only investing in projects around major metro areas, and especially in the SE.
This is clearlt politically impossible, so what actually inevitably happens is that everyone gets something - and yes, this means that some rail projects with higher BCRs will go unbuilt whilst others with lower BCRs get the nod. Look closely at the winners from the 2010/11 transport elements of the spending review - and what has survived: WRATH (T May, Maidenhead; D Cameron, Witney); Electric Spine / MML electrification to Sheffield (N Clegg, Sheffield Hallam). So even a technocratic answer is inherently political.
Third, though the UK remains one of the most fiscally centric nations on earth - most cash goes into the Treasury and then comes out again, rather than being raised locally or regionally - which is a strength and a weakness. What it could, but doesn't always/often mean is that strategic decisionmaking is easier. Instead (and MoD is probably the worst offender here) what matters is process, and getting your project into the system. If you can get a project accepted, then it is increasingly difficult to stop, irrespective of cost overruns. This means that all of the incentives are in place to bid unrealisitically low and stretch everything out in terms of time and cost - perversly it is in some sense to DfT/Grayling's credit that they pulled MML wiring when it was clear that it simply wasn't deliverable inside their fiscal envelope (and Clegg no longer being Deputy PM made the politics much easier).
Fourth, and for now, finally (if indeed anyone has read this far), capital investment is always easier to cut than staff, even it is critical over the long term. This is why Brown as Chancellor set up split Resource / Capital budgets, so that departments couldn't just raid the capital budget to pay for staff or programmes. Crucially, departments could move as much cash as they wanted the other way (more or less, it was never really tested) to allow more capital investment- because the easy way would simply result in much lower capital investment.
All of which is saying that "political support" or "funding in place" may mean a large pile of cash to hire some bulldozers and buy some track, but more likely is means that there is "broad support" to one (or more) of the stages that Bald Rick has so helpfully outlined above.
First, there is always more demand for public spending than there is money available. This is not a political comment, but everyone can think of something that will be wonderful and cost more than their personal taxes can fund - so there is rarely a meaningful upper limit.
Second, it would theoretically be possible to run a BCR over every piece of government spending and fund things on this basis - highest BCR first, lowest last and fund projects down the list until you run out of cash. But even if you could agree a methodology (you won't) then the results would probably be (i) primary and technical education (ii) pure science and engineering research (iii) infrastructure and (iv) healthcare for those below retirement. Health is an excellent example of a skewed 80/20 rule -half, and perhaps as much as 75% of medical spending is in someone's last year of life, which is clearly terrible value for money. So, we can save lots of cash by closing hospitals and not committing money to the elderly, and maxmise BCR in transport by only investing in projects around major metro areas, and especially in the SE.
This is clearlt politically impossible, so what actually inevitably happens is that everyone gets something - and yes, this means that some rail projects with higher BCRs will go unbuilt whilst others with lower BCRs get the nod. Look closely at the winners from the 2010/11 transport elements of the spending review - and what has survived: WRATH (T May, Maidenhead; D Cameron, Witney); Electric Spine / MML electrification to Sheffield (N Clegg, Sheffield Hallam). So even a technocratic answer is inherently political.
Third, though the UK remains one of the most fiscally centric nations on earth - most cash goes into the Treasury and then comes out again, rather than being raised locally or regionally - which is a strength and a weakness. What it could, but doesn't always/often mean is that strategic decisionmaking is easier. Instead (and MoD is probably the worst offender here) what matters is process, and getting your project into the system. If you can get a project accepted, then it is increasingly difficult to stop, irrespective of cost overruns. This means that all of the incentives are in place to bid unrealisitically low and stretch everything out in terms of time and cost - perversly it is in some sense to DfT/Grayling's credit that they pulled MML wiring when it was clear that it simply wasn't deliverable inside their fiscal envelope (and Clegg no longer being Deputy PM made the politics much easier).
Fourth, and for now, finally (if indeed anyone has read this far), capital investment is always easier to cut than staff, even it is critical over the long term. This is why Brown as Chancellor set up split Resource / Capital budgets, so that departments couldn't just raid the capital budget to pay for staff or programmes. Crucially, departments could move as much cash as they wanted the other way (more or less, it was never really tested) to allow more capital investment- because the easy way would simply result in much lower capital investment.
All of which is saying that "political support" or "funding in place" may mean a large pile of cash to hire some bulldozers and buy some track, but more likely is means that there is "broad support" to one (or more) of the stages that Bald Rick has so helpfully outlined above.
Brilliant post, and spot on.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
may I also add @Tobbes to my congratulation list. Both he and @Bald Rick have MUCH more patience than me!
such is project life!
such is project life!
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I don't need to read it. I know it all. It is just guff that is pointless and just bureaucracy designed to slow down railway projects and make sure the money is spent on roads and that railways never get built. Therefore:
1) 10 minutes
2) Map. Red line. Make it so. Easy.
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 2,047
The questions are wrong.
1) Why do you advertise a railway on a website when potentially you have 20 years to infinity of waiting?
In my opinion nothing should be advertised until everything is signed off. The building part of the railway is always a finite amount of time, the grips 1-4 stage are infinite. Almost all the reasons I come here to complain is because the website is never taken down, it shows .1% progress at a time as meaningful and the end of the tunnel is never in sight. Like I said the process itself as I read it seems ok. Just like movies, they are not frequently advertised years ahead of their theatrical release, usually its when you have something already to show for whats done so far. In terms of phase 2 which the meat of the meal here, nothing has been done. Up until today I felt this was a dream that would never happen. Happy to see a sign off on this project.
1) Why do you advertise a railway on a website when potentially you have 20 years to infinity of waiting?
In my opinion nothing should be advertised until everything is signed off. The building part of the railway is always a finite amount of time, the grips 1-4 stage are infinite. Almost all the reasons I come here to complain is because the website is never taken down, it shows .1% progress at a time as meaningful and the end of the tunnel is never in sight. Like I said the process itself as I read it seems ok. Just like movies, they are not frequently advertised years ahead of their theatrical release, usually its when you have something already to show for whats done so far. In terms of phase 2 which the meat of the meal here, nothing has been done. Up until today I felt this was a dream that would never happen. Happy to see a sign off on this project.
I don't need to read it. I know it all. It is just guff that is pointless and just bureaucracy designed to slow down railway projects and make sure the money is spent on roads and that railways never get built. Therefore:
1) 10 minutes
2) Map. Red line. Make it so. Easy.
Well exactly.
I’m afraid I don’t fully understand what you are saying.
Are you suggesting that there should be no publicity about a potential rail (or road) project until it is ready to start construction? How could that work? The opening chapter of the Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy springs to mind.
All of this remimds me of the (sadly apocryphal) story of the Tsar personally surveying the line from Moscow to St Petersburg, which apparently consisted of some experts coming with a surveyed route which displeased his Imperial Highness who supposedly called for the map and used his sword as a ruler and drew a straight line between the two.
Voila, this is all dead easy with a ruthless autocracy and a limitless supply of serfs to provide free labour and no concern about the environment or property rights!
Voila, this is all dead easy with a ruthless autocracy and a limitless supply of serfs to provide free labour and no concern about the environment or property rights!
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 2,047
Publicity for now and the next generation are different things. Network rail wouldn't advertise on TV saying "EWR" coming in 2026. But more to the point there is a huge lag between advertising a railway on a website without knowing if objections could actually block it. Or does it work in the way that if the railway is advertised publicly the government will over throw all objections and take all land rights. Apart from EWR are there any other lagging NR projects that are more than 10 years in the making?
@richieb1971 I can't think of a major project that *hasn't* been more than 10 years in the making. Rather than decrying the current system, which, as @Bald Rick has so eloquently detailed, is a compromise between the rights and aspirations of different groups, you'd do better to ask whether the major developments are being built as efficiently as possible.
For instance, at one point (and I don't know about now) in simple terms, HS2 was being built using the DfT's budget line for Crossrail of £1.5bn/year from the completion of CR1 this year. Thus, the question being asked of HS2 was "how much HS2 can I have for £1.5bn per annum?" rather than "what's the most efficient method of building the whole of HS2, irrespective of the annual cost?" The answers may have been the same, though this is unlikely. Where we can (and should) do better is in getting commitment to doing something, agreeing a realistic budget, and then building it in the most efficient manner possible, in order to maximise the gains in the positive BCR.
For instance, at one point (and I don't know about now) in simple terms, HS2 was being built using the DfT's budget line for Crossrail of £1.5bn/year from the completion of CR1 this year. Thus, the question being asked of HS2 was "how much HS2 can I have for £1.5bn per annum?" rather than "what's the most efficient method of building the whole of HS2, irrespective of the annual cost?" The answers may have been the same, though this is unlikely. Where we can (and should) do better is in getting commitment to doing something, agreeing a realistic budget, and then building it in the most efficient manner possible, in order to maximise the gains in the positive BCR.
- Status