Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[lordgoata]

Hi all,

In case anyone is interested, someone placed a FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) request for all correspondance between the Goring & South Stoke Rail Action Group, and South Oxfordshire District Council back at the end of August. There is a lot of interesting information in the emails, including meeting minutes, Q&A's and various other presentations from NR^» (Network Rail - home page), RAG^▸ (Radstock Action Group), and the magnitude of other groups that are now involved.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_with_goring_and_s_2

[grahame]

From Plaid Cymru

https://www.partyof.wales/news/2015/11/06/rail-electrification-to-swansea-faces-delay-plaid-cymru-understands/?force=1

Rail electrification to Swansea faces delay, Plaid Cymru understands

Electrification of the main rail line between Cardiff and Swansea could slip by up to five years, Plaid Cymru has learnt.

Well-placed rail industry sources have told the Party of Wales that the Swansea leg could slip into Network Rail^s next Control Period running from April 2019 to March 2024. It was originally scheduled to take place during the current Control Period running to March 2019.

It is understood the slippage is as a result of a backlog of Network Rail works and a cut in funding.

This summer UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Government ministers admitted that the electrification of the line to Swansea may be pushed back beyond 2018.

Plaid Cymru^s Shadow Transport Minister, Rhun ap Iorwerth AM, said: "A review of the existing Network Rail Control Period is due to be published in the next few weeks.

"The message I^m hearing is that there are real fears that we will face a delay in electrification between Cardiff and Swansea of between one and five years, as it will fall into a new Control Period.

"Short-changing the people of Swansea would be totally unacceptable and I call on the UK Government to give a firm commitment on the timetable for electrification to our second city.

and

"This uncertainty has not been helped by the UK Government reneging on the prioritising of South Wales electrification."

Hmm ... I would rather suspect it's not a change of priorities but rather an element of what the review will signal.

[Rhydgaled]

Hmm ... I would rather suspect it's not a change of priorities but rather an element of what the review will signal.

The GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification would seem to be the government's main priority for electrification, given it was the one that wasn't 'paused' earlier this year. Thus, unless Sir Peter Hendy's presents a very strong argument for re-prioritising something else ahead of parts of the GWML scheme it would seem logical for Cardiff-Swansea to follow immediately after London-Cardiff/Bristol/Oxford. Thus, unless the schedule-slip is absolutly huge I would hope it won't take until 2024 to complete. It might slip into the begining of CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) though, Dec 2020 maybe? I'm not in the rail industry though so I'm not clear just how delayed the scheme is.

[didcotdean]

There are though a lot of projects that have been 'agreed' and funded to the level that was indicated to be necessary by Network Rail, and are incorporated into the plans of local authorities etc, some of which are part-funding the development itself, or other developments on the periphery. East-West rail is one example, and I daresay the electrifications all are including TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about).

The credibility of  Network Rail will sink greatly locally, whichever of these may be de-prioritised and especially if this is a multi-year delay.

[TaplowGreen]

The credibility of  Network Rail will sink greatly locally, whichever of these may be de-prioritised and especially if this is a multi-year delay.

.........maybe they could consider a rebranding exercise, seems quite popular at the moment amongst rail organisations whose credibility has sunk!

[didcotdean]

That might be as a result of privatisation 

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Hi all,

In case anyone is interested, someone placed a FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) request for all correspondance between the Goring & South Stoke Rail Action Group, and South Oxfordshire District Council back at the end of August. There is a lot of interesting information in the emails, including meeting minutes, Q&A's and various other presentations from NR^» (Network Rail - home page), RAG^▸ (Radstock Action Group), and the magnitude of other groups that are now involved.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_with_goring_and_s_2

This is a significant issue and I^m surprised it hasn^t had more publicity.  It has the potential to delay train testing and could prompt similar protest action down the line where there are AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty)'s and listed structures etc. 

I think the OHLE is more intrusive than it need be ^ it looks like standard length uprights are being used which project well above (to varying degrees) the horizontal spans, which looks ugly.  It would look much neater if the uprights were cut level with the horizontals as in previous electrification schemes.

Or maybe this will happen after final installation and alignment etc?

[paul7575]

I think the OHLE is more intrusive than it need be ^ it looks like standard length uprights are being used which project well above (to varying degrees) the horizontal spans, which looks ugly.  It would look much neater if the uprights were cut level with the horizontals as in previous electrification schemes.

The 'excess height' is not really removable, it is there to carry the 25 kV auto transformer feeders.

Paul

[Oberon]

I seem to remember when the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) was electrified in the 1980s it happened very quickly and came out under initial cost projections. I'm sure I read BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) gave quite a lot of money back to the government after the scheme had been completed. So the question must be asked, if BR did it so efficiently twenty odd years ago, why is Network Rail now making such a complete hash of electrification on the GW^▸ (Great Western)? In those days we had an anti-rail government and a relatively efficient railway, these days it seems to be something like the opposite state of affairs. It's all very sad

[SandTEngineer]

The biggest problem is of course that Network Rail cannot cope and this has been brought about by a significant loss of skills due to the way it treats its people and the lack of experienced leadership.

I think I have mentioned before elsewhere on this forum that perhaps is now the time to split NR^» (Network Rail - home page) so that it becomes solely a maintenance and operating company and hand over all new works and renewals to some of the experienced Project Management companies with worldwide knowledge of significant infrastructre building (Atkins, Bectel etc.)  All you need is a very robust Handover/Handback process.  Many large projects in the past have been handled this way (WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) Four Tracking, HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel), Reading Station Reconstruction and Remodelling).

I would cite Crossrail as a current example of a very significant infrastructure project that is (fairly) quietly progressing in the background without the issues that NR has suffered.

[Rhydgaled]

hand over all new works and renewals to some of the experienced Project Management companies with worldwide knowledge of significant infrastructre building (Atkins, Bectel etc.)  All you need is a very robust Handover/Handback process.  Many large projects in the past have been handled this way (WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) Four Tracking, HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel), Reading Station Reconstruction and Remodelling).

I thought the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification had been subcontracted to recognised names anyway, perhaps not Atkins specificly though.

I would cite Crossrail as a current example of a very significant infrastructure project that is (fairly) quietly progressing in the background without the issues that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has suffered.

Good point, while some rail infrustructure projects in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) are in disarray others do appear to be going fairly smoothly. For (possibly) another example, I can't recall any hicups with the new Borders railway in Scotland.

[stuving]

The GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification would seem to be the government's main priority for electrification, given it was the one that wasn't 'paused' earlier this year. Thus, unless Sir Peter Hendy's presents a very strong argument for re-prioritising something else ahead of parts of the GWML scheme it would seem logical for Cardiff-Swansea to follow immediately after London-Cardiff/Bristol/Oxford.

In official terminology, Project W001a is called "Great Western Electrification" but only runs to Cardiff. It is clearer to call it "Great Western Main Line Electrification", though of course the line onward to Swansea is still a main line, if not the main line. As of the last plan revision in June all its future committed dates have gone and these are now "TBC". There is a note of the Hendy review, but pending its outcome most other projects were left unchanged.

The comments are about Cardiff-Swansea, which is a separate project (W001b) called "South Wales Main Line Electrification". It has never had any committed dates beyond GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) stage 3, which was April 2015 but has already been revised to September (and quite possibly missed again). It still has its original DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) target dates and a warning about "reprofiling", as well as the overall note of the Hendy review.

When the control period structure was created, there may have been some notion that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would be given a big (very big) heap of money for five years and left to get on with it (but with ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) peering over their shoulders). Of course that never happened, and it is now a reporting framework, rather than a spending control one. So if something is planned for the end of CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) and slips a few months, it is now in CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) - but hardly an excuse for reacting as if NR are now free to decide on their own defer it for five years.

Not that such details would affect politicians' willingness to make incontinent comments like Plaid Cymru's. And there is still a good reason for completing to Swansea - the SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) fleet ready to go there. 

[stuving]

The biggest problem is of course that Network Rail cannot cope and this has been brought about by a significant loss of skills due to the way it treats its people and the lack of experienced leadership.

I think I have mentioned before elsewhere on this forum that perhaps is now the time to split NR^» (Network Rail - home page) so that it becomes solely a maintenance and operating company and hand over all new works and renewals to some of the experienced Project Management companies with worldwide knowledge of significant infrastructre building (Atkins, Bectel etc.)  All you need is a very robust Handover/Handback process.  Many large projects in the past have been handled this way (WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) Four Tracking, HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel), Reading Station Reconstruction and Remodelling).

I would cite Crossrail as a current example of a very significant infrastructure project that is (fairly) quietly progressing in the background without the issues that NR has suffered.

As I understand it, Crossrail, RSAR, and other recent large projects have used variations on the "Heathrow T5" model. That means a single project management team of the overall project managers, its main contractors, and some at least of their subcontractors. The idea was to get away from the practices that had grown up in the big Civils contractors of warily dealing with other project parties at arm's length and suing each other rather than cooperating when anything went wrong. Within this alliance they are supposed to cooperate "open-book", ignoring who works for which company.

The model also involves fully funding analysed risk and contingency. That means working out what can go wrong, what its impact is, including cost, and what to do in that case. It often requires either risk reduction (starting more detailed work or on-site investigations early) or setting a large contingency budget that reduces as you proceed.

When judged by the cost allocated at the start, it costs a lot more to do things that way. Some of that extra cost is real (and both T5 and RSAR were very expensive), but usually the alternative is a very optimistic budget that gets greatly overspent anyway.

Whether it helps a lot to contract at the whole-project level is debatable. RSAR was led by NR, in alliance with a Costain/Hochtief joint venture as main contractor. The problem seems to be more in the planning and estimating than management, and as much at lower levels in areas only NR know about (like where things are in the ground and how to keep a railway running while you work) as in things that should be off-loaded.

But as there is a review into what went wrong with CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) planning and budgeting going on, due to report "by Autumn 2015", maybe we should wait for it. That's the one by Colette Bowe, in case you were likely to confuse it with Sir Peter Hendy's or Nicola Shaw's.

[TonyK]

I would cite Crossrail as a current example of a very significant infrastructure project that is (fairly) quietly progressing in the background without the issues that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has suffered.

That raises an interesting point. Crossrail may seem to be much the more complex project, but most of the work has been underground, using tried and tested technology in what is in effect virgin ground. The TBMs and the tunnel lining borrow much from the Channel Tunnel construction amongst others, and issues that cropped up 25 years ago are no longer problems. The station buildings are an exception, of course, but London is used to having big holes dug in it. What you see is in relatively compact areas, and complaining gets you nowhere in London anyway.

The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) electrification process, on the other hand, is using a HOPS train in part, which hasn't come up to expectation. If that can only work at half the rate it was supposed to do, then its part of the project will take twice as long. We know that for next time (if there is one  - my guess is there will be) and can build that knowledge into forecasts if it can't be sorted any other way.

[SandTEngineer]

Back to piling for a moment.......

If you follow this link http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/12281.aspx it will take you to the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) GW^▸ (Great Western) Electrification web page where down the page there are links to local area information on piling progress etc. This includes upcoming dates of work and maps of the affected area(s).  Not seen this before.  Perhaps somebody has given NR a (big) kick up the backside