Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[SandTEngineer]

North Pole Depot branded Haitachi for SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)). Is there going to be an entrance at the Padd end of the depot where flyover line branches off?

There is still a connection on the West London Line.

All good depot design should always have two independent exits. Unfortunately the one I'm currently working on only has one     Not a good portent for the future if 36 units get trapped at the start of the service

[grahame]

From The Guardian

Network Rail investment plan has 'staggering' costs, report finds
Future of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railway regulator in doubt after Public Accounts Committee says it has concerns over rail investment

A damning report by MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) into Network Rail^s aborted five-year investment plan has warned that the public will foot the bill for "staggering and unacceptable" cost increases after the government and industry agreed to pay for work that could never have been delivered in time and on budget.

In an assessment that will put the future of the rail regulator further in doubt, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said it had serious concerns over rail investment following the admission of further delays and overspending in the 38.3bn programme of rail works.

MPs on the committee said the track and signalling operator Network Rail had "lost its grip" and demanded clearer accountability for project costs and management. They also questioned if the Office of Rail and Road (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)), the regulator that signed off the "unrealistic" programme, was fit for purpose.

It said that even after the planning and budgeting failures, there remained far too much uncertainty over the costs and delivery of major rail electrification works on the TransPennine route and the Midland Main Line, and that more projects could be delayed to balance the books. Electrifying the Great Western Main Line from London to Cardiff is now expected to cost 2.8bn, rather than the 1.6bn estimated a year ago, the committee found.

The PAC called for a fundamental review of the regulator^s role and effectiveness in planning rail infrastructure, noting: "We are concerned that the ORR lacks the capability to robustly scrutinise Network Rail^s plans."

Meg Hillier, chair of the PAC, said: "Network Rail has lost its grip on managing large infrastructure projects. The result is a twofold blow to taxpayers: delays in the delivery of promised improvements, and a vastly bigger bill for delivering them.

"The government has identified rail infrastructure as a vital part of its economic plans, for example in establishing what it describes as a 'Northern powerhouse'. It is alarming that, in planning work intended to support these plans, its judgment should be so flawed.

"Our inquiry has found that the agreed work could never have been delivered within the agreed budget and timeframe. Yet Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the regulator ^ the Office of Rail and Road ^ signed up to the plans anyway.

"Passengers and the public are paying a heavy price and we must question whether the ORR is fit for purpose."

The first public admission from the government that the 38.3bn plan was going off the rails came in June, when the government replaced the chairman of Network Rail and announced three reviews into its investment plan and structures. The first, Sir Peter Hendy's assessment of how much work can realistically now be conducted by 2019 for the budget provided, is expected to be published next week.

Responding to the report, Network Rail said it had now made significant changes to planning and budgeting. A spokesperson said: "It is clear that we, as an industry, have been overly ambitious about what could be accomplished with the funds and resources available. Network Rail has successfully delivered over 5,000 projects over the past five years, but our understanding of how best to plan and deliver major new electrification schemes was not good enough."

A transport department spokesperson said: "We are proud to have a hugely ambitious investment programme, but agree that lessons should be learned on all sides. We are committed to seeing the 38bn programme through and delivering the railway that passengers deserve."

The ORR said it welcomed the report. A spokesperson said: ^We need to learn the lessons, and agree with PAC^s recommendations that uncertainties in key projects need to be addressed differently.

"With the changes to Network Rail's ownership and finances since it became a public sector company, ORR agrees that a review of its own role in major projects is appropriate."

Electrification of three major routes was at the heart of rail upgrades described as vital by Network Rail and promised in the Conservative party manifesto. But just weeks after the election two of the three schemes were paused by the government, while the Great Western scheme will be delayed, potentially incurring further costs associated with new trains on order from Hitachi.

[grahame]

And from the Daily Telegraph

Ballooning costs and delays of rail modernisation attacked as "staggering and unacceptable"

MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) hit out at Network Rail, industry regulator and Department for Transport over spiralling costs and delays in plans to overhaul rail network

"Staggering and unacceptable" cost increases in the modernisation of Britain^s railway network have led MPs to call for a "fundamental" review of the way the work is organised.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has condemned what it called "severe planning and budgeting" failures in Network Rail^s five-year investment plan.

Network Rail has lost its grip on managing large infrastructure projects says Meg Hillier, chairman of Public Accounts Committee. Singled out for particular criticism on the 38.3bn 2014-2019 programme of rail investment was project to electrify the Great Western Main Line linking London and Cardiff, where costs have ballooned from an estimated 1.6bn last year to as much as 2.8bn.

The committee also called for a review of regulator the Office of Road and Rail^s (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) role in planning rail infrastructure projects in light of the problems.


Meg Hillier, chairman of the committee, said: "Network Rail has lost its grip on managing large infrastructure projects. The result is a twofold blow to taxpayers: delays in the delivery of promised improvements, and a vastly bigger bill for delivering them.
"The potential near-doubling in cost of the electrification of the Great Western line is a symptom of seriously flawed control and planning. Another is the continuing uncertainty over electrification of both the TransPennine route and the Midland Main Line.
"Our inquiry has found that the agreed work could never have been delivered within the agreed budget and timeframe. Yet Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the ORR signed up to the plans anyway.^
The committee also said that rail passengers and the public are "paying a heavy price" for the problems and questioned whether the ORR was "fit for purpose."
Findings from the committee included that the five-year programme of work agreed between the Department for Transport, Network Rail and ORR "could not have been delivered within the agreed budget". To prevent this happening again, the PAC recommended that in future the Government must check all future plans are realistic.
The committee also said ORR^s role should be reviewed; that the current five-year planning cycle is not suitable for major investment projects and these should treated separately; and that Network Rail^s reclassification as a public body had made it harder for it to raise money and therefore it needed better budget controls.
The committee added that there is "a risk more projects will be delayed in order to balance Network Rail^s budget" and it and the Department for Transport need to have a clear and agreed policy on which projects are achievable.
ORR said it "welcomed" the committee^s scrutiny and the rising costs and delays were "unacceptable".
A spokesman added: "With the changes to Network Rail's ownership and finances since it became a public sector company, ORR agrees that a review of its own role in major projects is appropriate. That review will need to cover the specification, planning and costing of major projects, their delivery and monitoring."
Network Rail agreed it had been "overly ambitious about what could be accomplished with the funds and resources available".
A spokesman added: "Our understanding of how best to plan and deliver major new electrification schemes was not good enough. We have now made significant changes to the way we plan and deliver our investment programme, which will see schemes progress only once they are sufficiently developed that a reliable cost estimate can be established."

[grahame]

Also

From UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Parliament - "Rail users will pay price for failure in investment planning" (the original press release on which articles are based, and links to quoted reports)

From the Bristol Post - "Electrification of railway through Bristol to cost taxpayer 1.2bn more, amid severe project delays"

From the Daily Mail - "Now it's the wrong sort of RAILS! Millions spent on new electric trains could have been wasted because they may not have suitable tracks to run on"

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) - "Rocketing rail electrification costs unacceptable, say MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)"

From City a.m. - " Public Accounts Committee slams Network Rail for serious planning and budgeting failures, including an "unacceptable" ^1.2bn overspend on Great Western Main Line project"

From Reuters - "MPs criticise Network Rail over upgrade failures"

And there are a slew of other articles out there too starting from midnight ...

[Rhydgaled]

From the Daily Mail - "Now it's the wrong sort of RAILS! Millions spent on new electric trains could have been wasted because they may not have suitable tracks to run on"

Tut, tut, tut. It isn't the wrong sort of rails (unless Network Rail really are incompetent and are installing 3rd rail electrification instead of OHLE), the rails aren't being changed (are they?) The article states February 2018 as the delivery date for the new trains. Assuming that is the entry-into-service date of the first 801 ('electric') unit, since the first bi-modes are already here (for testing purposes), they only have to get the wires to Bristol Temple Meads by then in order to start using the 801s as they arrive. The other problem then is getting the network ready for the bi-modes to enter service as they are delivered. Assuming a bi-mode can keep to time on diesel provided it isn't asked to do more than 100mph then they don't need to wire Temple Meads, just Paddington to Bath and Bristol Parkway by the time the first 800 is ready for service.

[Electric train]

From the Daily Mail - "Now it's the wrong sort of RAILS! Millions spent on new electric trains could have been wasted because they may not have suitable tracks to run on"

Tut, tut, tut. It isn't the wrong sort of rails (unless Network Rail really are incompetent and are installing 3rd rail electrification instead of OHLE), the rails aren't being changed (are they?) The article states February 2018 as the delivery date for the new trains. Assuming that is the entry-into-service date of the first 801 ('electric') unit, since the first bi-modes are already here (for testing purposes), they only have to get the wires to Bristol Temple Meads by then in order to start using the 801s as they arrive. The other problem then is getting the network ready for the bi-modes to enter service as they are delivered. Assuming a bi-mode can keep to time on diesel provided it isn't asked to do more than 100mph then they don't need to wire Temple Meads, just Paddington to Bath and Bristol Parkway by the time the first 800 is ready for service.

Doesn't even need to be that far Didcot or better still Swindon can be suitable places to raise and drop the pans.  I am still not sure is the raising and dropping is going to be done on move, if it is then almost anywhere could be used and it could alter as areas of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") are commissioned

[TonyK]

Doesn't even need to be that far Didcot or better still Swindon can be suitable places to raise and drop the pans.  I am still not sure is the raising and dropping is going to be done on move, if it is then almost anywhere could be used and it could alter as areas of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") are commissioned

The Train Technical Specification (TS1577 on page 13) says:

It is an essential requirement that a bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train shall be capable of switching between modes whilst at any speed from stationary up to line speed.

Pans on the fly, then!

[Electric train]

Doesn't even need to be that far Didcot or better still Swindon can be suitable places to raise and drop the pans.  I am still not sure is the raising and dropping is going to be done on move, if it is then almost anywhere could be used and it could alter as areas of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") are commissioned

The Train Technical Specification (TS1577 on page 13) says:

It is an essential requirement that a bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train shall be capable of switching between modes whilst at any speed from stationary up to line speed.

Pans on the fly, then!

Just because the TSI states pan ups and drops on the fly, the GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program) OLE systems should be able to take it they might have fun trying it on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) 

[TonyK]

Just because the TSI states pan ups and drops on the fly, the GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program) OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") systems should be able to take it they might have fun trying it on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) 

They could try it. Once.

I would think that the norm would be for the pantograph to be deployed at a station stop, but whatever. Interestingly, the spec also calls for the trains to be able to draw power from OHLE and supplement it with power from the diesel engines. I suppose this is to cover a drop in the power available from the OHLE, but not a total loss. Is this a scenario likely to happen often?

[stuving]

Just because the TSI states pan ups and drops on the fly, the GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program) OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") systems should be able to take it they might have fun trying it on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) 

Or - just because it's required of IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) (and not in any TSI, I think), does that mean NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will include that in their operating procedures? Well, you know how quick the railways are to make changes like that - so not likely in my lifetime, then.

I would think that the norm would be for the pantograph to be deployed at a station stop, but whatever. Interestingly, the spec also calls for the trains to be able to draw power from OHLE and supplement it with power from the diesel engines. I suppose this is to cover a drop in the power available from the OHLE, but not a total loss. Is this a scenario likely to happen often?

Where does it say that? It's not true for a single unit train, as you can see from this:

N084  Bi ^ Mode IEP Unit:
Means an IEP Unit where the main power source(s) can be provided by means of a 25kV Overhead Electric Supply and by means of a Self Power Source but only one of these at a time.

For a train of two units, one or both of which is a bi-mode, nothing demands that both operate from the same power source. So in that case you might have one train running off the OLE and one off its diesels. But why would you? Other than a fault, perhaps some out-of-the-way corners of the OLE realm might not provide enough juice for a double-length train?

The other such case is the locomotive-hauled mode - as defined the locomotive does not provide any hotel service power, which is the original reason for insisting on a bit of on-board generation even in electric units. But ... I was going to say that locomotive-hauled mode is not now relevant, as it was only included as an alternative to making bi-modes but Hitachi chose to offer those instead. That might not be true any more ... if there's a stash of big diesel locomotives hiding somewhere, and if Hatachi designed to the full requirement rather than negotiating it away as no longer needed, then might that solve a certain little short-term problem? But of course there is no such stash.

[TonyK]

[
Where does it say that? It's not true for a single unit train, as you can see from this:

In TS1962 and TS2000 - although it is a desirable, rather than essential requirement.

TS1962 It is a desirable requirement that a bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train shall also be capable of operating in a combined electric and self power mode where power is primarily taken from the self power source and any additional power is taken from the electrification supply.

TS2000 It is a desirable requirement that a bi-mode IEP train shall also be capable of operating in a combined electric and self power mode where power is primarily taken from the electrification supply and any additional power is taken from the self power source.

The two quotes do rather contradict each other, don't they?

[stuving]

[
Where does it say that? It's not true for a single unit train, as you can see from this:

In TS1962 and TS2000 - although it is a desirable, rather than essential requirement.

TS1962 It is a desirable requirement that a bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) train shall also be capable of operating in a combined electric and self power mode where power is primarily taken from the self power source and any additional power is taken from the electrification supply.

TS2000 It is a desirable requirement that a bi-mode IEP train shall also be capable of operating in a combined electric and self power mode where power is primarily taken from the electrification supply and any additional power is taken from the self power source.

The two quotes do rather contradict each other, don't they?

I see no contradiction, unless both apply exclusively to a single operating mode. But in any case they are not in the latest version, "Issue 05 of 19/07/02 Formal issue for Contract". I think you have been looking at "Issue 01 of 15/12/08 Formal issue for ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender)". The differences should in principle be responses to suggestions in the tenders or in further negotiations with the supplier(s). The newer version is in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-express-programme-technical-specification-and-contracts .

[TonyK]

I see no contradiction, unless both apply exclusively to a single operating mode. But in any case they are not in the latest version, "Issue 05 of 19/07/02 Formal issue for Contract". I think you have been looking at "Issue 01 of 15/12/08 Formal issue for ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender)". The differences should in principle be responses to suggestions in the tenders or in further negotiations with the supplier(s). The newer version is in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-express-programme-technical-specification-and-contracts .

Good thing I wasn't tendering for the job. I would have been using the wrong spec, and would have looked a right chump. Indeed, caught with my pants down!

[stuving]

Good thing I wasn't tendering for the job. I would have been using the wrong spec, and would have looked a right chump. Indeed, caught with my pants down!

Nonsense - tendering for the job is exactly what that issue was for. You would be a bit late for that, though.

And as that was put in as a "desirable requirement" - which I guess means "we'd like to make this a requirement but not if it costs money" - you can still ask why they would want it. It must have been seen by someone as being useful, though note that it is still to apply to a "train" not a "unit".

[Rhydgaled]

From the Daily Mail - "Now it's the wrong sort of RAILS! Millions spent on new electric trains could have been wasted because they may not have suitable tracks to run on"

Tut, tut, tut. It isn't the wrong sort of rails (unless Network Rail really are incompetent and are installing 3rd rail electrification instead of OHLE), the rails aren't being changed (are they?) The article states February 2018 as the delivery date for the new trains. Assuming that is the entry-into-service date of the first 801 ('electric') unit, since the first bi-modes are already here (for testing purposes), they only have to get the wires to Bristol Temple Meads by then in order to start using the 801s as they arrive. The other problem then is getting the network ready for the bi-modes to enter service as they are delivered. Assuming a bi-mode can keep to time on diesel provided it isn't asked to do more than 100mph then they don't need to wire Temple Meads, just Paddington to Bath and Bristol Parkway by the time the first 800 is ready for service.

Doesn't even need to be that far Didcot or better still Swindon can be suitable places to raise and drop the pans.  I am still not sure is the raising and dropping is going to be done on move, if it is then almost anywhere could be used and it could alter as areas of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") are commissioned

I was assuming that they would only want to raise/lower the pan in a station, and I think the linespeed is 125mph (or at least 110mph) between Swindon and Box, and in places between Swindon and the junction from Yate. I suppose the 800s won't all go into service at once so for the first few you'd only need one route (the Cotswolds requiring the least wiring, just PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to Didcot assuming the service stops there). Then you could add Didcot to either Bath or Bristol Parkway (for either Bristol or Wales services) then the other of the two when more sets are introduced.
----------------------------
As for the 'desirable requirement' of using both electric and diesel power together, I wonder whether the idea was to use both together to give more power to accelerate faster if the train was delayed?