Spurred on by the set of figures that grahame inspired me to look for as a result of his recent
Swedish topic, I have been looking into why Ashington passenger service reinstatement costs appear so comparatively high. It soon became clear that the sheer scope of works required mean that it is certainly a completely different kind of challenge to either Haparanda or Okehampton - This
Modern Railways article gives an excellent overview.
The Modern Railways article also gives an interesting counter point of view from Northumberland County Council through Stuart McNaughton, their Strategic Transport Manager, and Simon Middleton, a rail business manager with their consultants Aecom, regarding their view that their approach has actually allowed the project to proceed quicker, and reduced costs from what they might otherwise have been had things been left primarily to Network Rail, even attracting interest from, among others, an organisation that will be very familiar to members of this forum:
December 2023 is being pencilled in for the opening of the Northumberland line. ‘We’ve got a very credible plan to achieve that date’ says Aecom’s Simon Middleton.
The clear glide path for the reopening has certainly drawn the attention of promoters of some other projects. ‘The West of England Combined Authority is one that has been keen to understand what we’ve done’ reports Mr McNaughton. ‘I think an important part of our approach has been the hybrid model, with Network Rail (remitted by the DfT» ) working on the rail aspects while stations and highways have been the responsibility of NCC. A joint programme integrator function has been pulling the infrastructure work together with the operating plan.’ Mr Middleton adds: ‘By contrast, I think that in the past, where there have been projects that are primarily being delivered by Network Rail, there has been a tendency to get stuck in the weeds, with perhaps an element of gold plating. We’ve benefited as Network Rail’s Eastern Region, under Rob McIntosh, has recognised that there’s a need to do things differently.’
However, the council have made two key mistakes. The first was to align with the DfT's Project Speed in the belief that it would serve merely as a means to the end of getting Ashington to the front of the queue:
‘In the summer of 2020 the Government was looking to “build back better” after Covid, and this was when Project Speed was hatched’ recalls Stuart McNaughton, Strategic Transport Manager with NCC. The acronym stands for ‘Swift, Pragmatic and Efficient Enhancement Delivery’. ‘It was based on the success in building the Nightingale hospitals and aimed to achieve projects with half the time and half the cost of what had been the norm.
‘At times this felt like a distraction to us: we were already doing value engineering on the route, and we were doing everything possible to deliver it as quickly as we could. But becoming part of Project Speed got us into the Government’s eye.’
and
While conceding that the outcome of the December 2019 election and the consequent attention on shoring up the newly-blue ‘wall’ has not done the Northumberland line any harm, Mr Middleton is keen to emphasise that the reopening project is a marathon, not a sprint. ‘Project Speed can be useful, but it needs to come along at a particular time in a project’s life cycle. We were fortunate as we were in the right place at the right time to take advantage of it: Project Speed has played a large part in bringing forward the decision to deliver by 12 months.’
However, Project Speed is actually a means to ensure the Treasury/DfT can exert complete control over such projects with the primary aim of driving down costs as far as possible. The economists involved - as member ellendune eloquently explored in their contribution to the Swedish topic - have as their reference point "the good old days" when during previous Conservative administrations of the 1980's and 1990's, British Rail's methods of introducing passenger services on freight-only lines included a spot of track slewing and the plonking of a bus shelter on a patch of repaved platform in Wiltshire, and the joining together with rubber bands and stickyback plastic of sections of line in Nottinghamshire, with their cost expectations set accordingly.
Unfortunately, the council have now discovered this to their cost. Here is the
Chronicle article that the SENRUG Chair mentioned in his blog piece:
In a meeting with Treasury officials and Andrew Gilligan, Boris Johnson's transport adviser, officials from Northumberland County Council were told to find cost savings. Options included cutting passenger services from two trains per hour to one, or cutting a planned station.
An account of the private meeting seen by Chronicle Live shows that officials agreed to draw up detailed proposals to remove Blyth Bebside Station from the scheme.
The account warns that this would risk "reputational damage from such a significant scope change", and points out that land for the station has already been acquired by the council.
Under the plan, planning permission for the station would still be sought, so that it could be built in the future if money becomes available.
Wansbeck MP▸ Ian Lavery said: "It is unbelievable that as planning permissions are being granted, the government are already looking to withdraw funding from the project. It is little wonder that the local Tories have been so keen to rename the stretch of track the Northumberland Line as if these measures go ahead who can be sure, Ashington, Blyth or Tyne will be served by the rail link.
"This is a kick in the teeth for those of us who have worked for decades to get the investment to the stage it is at now and a betrayal of our communities who have been held back so long."
The drive to cut costs appears to be part of a Department for Transport initiative called Project SPEED (Swift, Pragmatic and Efficient Enhancement Delivery), announced in February.
Even more unfortunately, the council have compounded this with their second mistake. In order to illustrate this, I am once again drawn to a section of the SENRUG Chair's blog piece that wasnt originally quoted by grahame:
It’s also worth also going back to the DfT’s own Press Release of 23rd January 2021, announcing the funding decision of that date. £794m in total, comprising £760m for the East-West Rail Link between Bicester and Bletchley, yet just £34m of the estimated £166m required in total for the Northumberland Line. If that represents the government’s desire to “level up” with regard to investment in the north, there is still a long way to go! Let’s hope this crazy decision can soon be reversed and we’ll soon be back to full steam ahead!
It is a matter of supreme irony that the SENRUG Chair remained laser-focused on the council during most of that blog piece, but switched his target at exactly the wrong moment. You see, the DfT actually awarded every penny of what the council asked for, because the council only actually asked for £34m of the estimated £166m required in total for the Northumberland Line:
As a project already quite well advanced when compared to others, the Ashington branch appealed in Westminster – resulting in the £34 million grant in January. ‘We thought about applying for a full allocation of funding to complete the project but decided this was a little premature, as we didn’t have tender prices and there was still some work to do on the business case’ recalls Mr McNaughton.
Whilst I am pretty certain that the government will provide just enough funding to ensure the completion of a scheme that has the potential to be a flagship of the "levelling-up" concept, by not asking for a full allocation of funding to complete the project, the council has put themselves in the position of having to accept whatever cost-cutting measures the Treasury/DfT suggest from now on in - Today Blyth Bebside, tomorrow? Well, who knows, really. I suspect that if and when SENRUG actually realise this, they will be looking to inflict rather more than "reputational damage" on the council as a result.
The upshot of this is that it really doesnt matter whether the council or SENRUG have the best plans for stations or anything else along the Ashington route, because neither will be wielding any real influence over any of it. In this "new normal", if the Treasury/DfT provides the funding for such schemes, then the Treasury/DfT will decide what gets built and where, just as they - through control of the vital funding streams - will decide the structure and scope of what bus and rail services are provided. In some cases, such as Bus Back Better, this may turn out to be good or even great for passengers. In other cases such as this, maybe not so great. Even then though, they are probably willing to make the political bet that, as with previous examples such as Borders, Alloa and Ebbw Vale in devolved areas - and indeed ultimately on the Melksham and Robin Hood lines in England - people focus on the positive benefits of having the line open and available for them to use, while any negative aspects of how the line was made open and available for them to use fade to the back of their minds.
The political aspect leads me neatly on to my final point. The eagle-eyed among you - particularly if like me you happen to have been a political advisor in the early to mid 2000's - will have spotted a further rather interesting aspect to this. However, I no longer play in those kind of ballparks, so I will leave it to others to decide for themselves the significance or otherwise of that particular element.
