Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[12hoursunday]

So the line will still have 19th century signalling - great!

Don't get to downbeat as he has............................

I have it on good authority

How many times have I heard 'I've have it on good authority' or 'the rumour is' Until you get it in black and white assume nothing. As a driver who goes over the route on a regular basis I can confirm that work is still be be done in different places along the line. Remember there is a bridge to be built at Honeybourne which was scheduled to be done in Feb I think. It could be that this project is the source of the delay.

[Weston-Sub-Edge]

Hi, as a newbie to the Coffee shop I have to say I am very optimistic about the redoubling project reaching fruition if a little later than planned.

Certainly the flow of up to date information from Network Rail could be more forthcoming. That said there is already too much physical and political capital invested in the project for it to stall completely.

If the project is over budget then economies have to be made. If its the signalling that has to be replanned than so be it.

I'm sure the siganllers at Evesham, Moreton and Ascot will not be complaining if their respective boxes get a further lease of life.

The somewhat antiquted semaphore siganlling has done its job for many decades and could continue to do so. A smattering of colour lights between boxes should be more than adequate to control movements and optimise headways.

I would imagine the remodled Honeybourne Station North Junction could be controlloed by Evesham box without any problems assuming a crossover is provided between up & down lines.

[ChrisB]

I have some more news direct from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) masnagement - however, I need to check it for completeness before posting it here, so it'll be early next week....

It is still going ahead, albeit with the current signalling - one further sighnal to go in at Moreton to assist in reversing trains there.

More to come soon.

[IndustryInsider]

Hi, as a newbie to the Coffee shop...

Welcome to the forum. I'm looking forward to hearing ChrisB's news...

[willc]

No-one ever said it wasn't going ahead.

And moving the signals to Didcot has only ever been one option among a number, such as retaining the existing boxes, concentrating all the signalling in one of the boxes, providing an interim box to operate the route until Didcot takes over...

As for the budget, a clear fixed figure has never emerged. The most recent best guess I can remember was somewhere in the ^62m-^63m area and Network Rail has to look long and hard at every penny it spends, so while all-singing, all-dancing new signals run from Didcot might be nice, they were never essential to achieving the keys goals of the project - and only came into the equation last March, some way into the planning process.

The following notice has appeared on the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) website, but having been very busy today, I did not have a chance to pursue the point with Network Rail, though the timing of the meeting fits in roughly with what I have been told about the progress of the final design work on track and signalling layouts.

"Newsletter number 105, advertised for publication on 29th March 2010, will be delayed until 12th April.  This is to await late news from Network Rail regarding re-doubling, following its internal  meeting which is due to take place on 19th March."

[Weston-Sub-Edge]

I find it hard to believe that there was no budget (fixed budget + contingency) for the project or at least one which was officially made public. There must have been a figure at the outset surely? If the initial budget has had to be trimmed to make economies then this is one thing. Being forced to make economies now because costings for the first phase of the project were wrong is something quite different and shows a level of incompetence somewhere. Perhaps I am being cynical.

The siganlling and track layouts should have been decided upon long ago. The fact that changes are having to be made at this stage shows the economies are being forced upon the project. The likely deduction is that somebody has costed the project incorrectly in the first place.

Oversights and mistakes happen. I just wish somebody at Network rail would have the balls to come clean and tell taxpayers what is going on.

[willc]

Budget figures suggested over the past two years have ranged from ^48m - what the Office for Rail Regulation said a very basic scheme should cost when scrutinising Network Rail's current control period spending plans - NR^» (Network Rail - home page) had indicated a ^51m bill in its business plan but also talked at other points of figures in the ^75m-^90m range. A consultant's report to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about), compiled as part of that scrutiny process, said the bill could hit ^105m.

Last summer Network Rail was, as I said, talking of ^62-63m. They are presumably trying to stick to that figure, which must be pretty challenging, given that laying a three-mile loop at Axminster, building a new station platform and footbridge there, strengthening bridges and some signalling work came in at ^20m.

Throughout the design process, they have been trying to get the maximum bang for their buck and achieve as many improvements as possible, including some above and beyond what is needed to deliver the basic goals of the scheme. Bandying about words like incompetence, mistakes and wrong is doing a disservice to people doing their level best to improve the route.

As for taxpayers, what do they have to do with it? If you're suggesting your taxes are paying for the scheme, no, they aren't. Network Rail raises its money in the markets.

[JayMac]

As for taxpayers, what do they have to do with it? If you're suggesting your taxes are paying for the scheme, no, they aren't. Network Rail raises its money in the markets.

What? All of it?

[Don]

Willc is correct, Network Rail were given something around the ^63m figure from the tax payer to spend on this, but because of the time taken by the government between the accurate costing and the final decision, the actual bill is considerably higher.  In addition, it was expected / requested that the Didcot ICC^▸ (Integrated Control Centre) project would have started earlier which would have removed much of the signalling costs from this project. So all extra money now has to be found from Network Rail's own pot which doesn't have much spare, as this money is also a fixed amount of tax payers money controlled by the government.

bignosemac, you are incorrect, Network Rail has no money from the markets yet (or didn't at the start of December), but in order to make ends meet in CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014), it has been told to borrow some. However, even then the majority of Network Rail's money will come from the tax payer. -  Neither of the last two "sell-off everything" governments have been able to find enough money to pay the private sector to look after the track (Having spent so much paying the private sector to run the trains).

Willc is also correct in saying that there were various options including how much was redoubled, and the signalling method and operation. Ultimately NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) decided on the current plan which will see the track doubled (as is now well known), new level crossings, new and lengthened platforms, and the existing signal boxes retained but with extra / new signals and points to control until Didcot ICC comes on line and takes over, which the Didcot project plan says is towards the end of 2014.

Note that before 2014 the existing signal boxes will be in use and there will not be much room for extra trains through a reduced headway. The aim of re-doubling was to reduce delay between Oxford and Paddington and not to provide extra services.

[JayMac]

Don, I am not incorrect. It appears you have got our posts confused. It was Willc who said that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) was getting it's income from the markets, (re-read his post). I quoted and questioned that.

I think NR are due around ^16 billion from the government (i.e. taxpayer) for Control Period 4.

[ChrisB]

Surely, Network Rail raise a LOT of their money from the Track Access charges that they levy on the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)?

I'm unsure as to the % of their total budget, it may be a lot more than 50%.....AS NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are a 'quango' controlled by the Government, each CP period expenditure is controlled by them, regardless of where their funds come from.

[ChrisB]

Note that before 2014 the existing signal boxes will be in use and there will not be much room for extra trains through a reduced headway. The aim of re-doubling was to reduce delay between Oxford and Paddington and not to provide extra services.

Odd that, when the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) are talking to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) about hourly services starting shortly after the completion of the project.....

[Weston-Sub-Edge]

Don,

I made the initial comment regarding the tax payer footing the bill for the project which willc questioned. Network Rail is a quango set up as a buffer between government and it's policies and the what happens on the ground. If soemthing goes wrong or a project goes over budget the government blames the quango so the political fall out is minimised. When it comes to capital expenditure it is the government who has to pay. If, in the case of this government, it has no money it borrows money on the markets in the shape of bonds. These bonds are effectively underwritten by the taxpayer.

So I am afraid to say every tax payer has a right to be concerned that the project seems to be over budget. Any extra cash will have to be borrowed by the government and paid back by the taxpayer in higher taxes and /or reduced public spending.

I am all for the project and the benefits will be enjoyed by millions of taxpayers who use the Cotswold line in the future.

I am annoyed that the existing project is being delayed to what seems to be inadequate budgeting. If the project was costed at ^63 million there is no excuse for it costing more. Each element of the project should have been costed carefully before any works started. What "circumstances beyond our control" have been experienced which require additional funding now?

 

[ChrisB]

No, read up the thread.....willc is correct here....

Budget figures suggested over the past two years have ranged from ^48m - what the Office for Rail Regulation said a very basic scheme should cost when scrutinising Network Rail's current control period spending plans - NR^» (Network Rail - home page) had indicated a ^51m bill in its business plan but also talked at other points of figures in the ^75m-^90m range. A consultant's report to the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about), compiled as part of that scrutiny process, said the bill could hit ^105m.

NR bid ^51m, but the ORR said that they'd pay for only ^48m for these works - so there was immediately a ^3m deficit. That ^51m was for a *very* basic scheme - I'm assuming that they were going for a better scheme costing slightly more.

No one has responded to the fact that NR also raise money via the access charges. I don't know whether the CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) budgets agreed by ORR take this money into account, or whether the access charges pay for day-to-day expenditure?....maybe their 'pot' is made up of 'left-overs' from daily expenditure, and it is this that can be used by NR to top-up projects such as this.

NR were in deficit to more than just the ^3m for this project when the CP4 funding was announced, with other projects also not being funded properly - so please blame the Government / ORR for budget deficits so far in CP4, not NR, who are blameless.

[Don]

Sorry bignosemac, you are right, I had got the posts the wrong way round.

Note that before 2014 the existing signal boxes will be in use and there will not be much room for extra trains through a reduced headway. The aim of re-doubling was to reduce delay between Oxford and Paddington and not to provide extra services.

Odd that, when the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) are talking to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) about hourly services starting shortly after the completion of the project.....

An hourly service each way is about what the line has now.  Oh, and in addition to this not being a priority, there is also a shortage of rolling stock which stops any real expansion of extra services, and, if you think about it, this shortage is likely to remain or become worse until either electrification or cross-rail starts to run. 

The reality is that once the line is completed some timetable tinkering will occur allowed for by a reduction in recovery time for trains on this line which may then provide some changes across the whole of the FGW's network, whilst on this line, a few Paddington-Oxford services may be extended to, and start from, Moreton.