Great Western Coffee Shop

Hmm.  :P

Rather oddly, Alan Price's letter is dated 6 August 2014.

You what??  :o ::)

Oh dear  :-\........perhaps the beginning of the end :o
http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh6/archive/docs/2015-08-06_ORR_network-rail-delivery-of-enhancement-programmes-2015-08-06.pdf

Just changing the name won't help.  There needs to be:

a) an agreed long term programme (beyond 5 years)  (Government - DfT, Treasury)
b) workforce planning to match (NR)
c) an education system that turns out enough engineers of all grades and types (Government - DFEE) - this is not just needed for the rail sector!

My response to your three points would be:
(a) No chance
(b) No chance
(c) No chance

I'll get my hat and coat........... ::)  :-X  ;)

From the BBC
Network Rail fined ^2m for delays

Network Rail has been fined ^2m by the rail regulator over train delays and cancellations in 2014-15.
The delays were mainly at London Bridge station, but also in Scotland.
Network Rail's performance on Southern, on Govia Thameslink (GTR) and in Scotland was "below expectations and missed punctuality targets", the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) said.

Network Rail has apologised to passengers for "disruption and frustration".
However, it said it had invested more than ^11m to "improve performance for Southern and Thameslink passengers" since the start of 2015.
Phil Hufton, managing director of network operations at Network Rail, said: "At London Bridge we are undertaking the biggest and most complex station and track redevelopment ever attempted on Britain's railways - while simultaneously continuing to keep services running."

Commuter chaos
Commuters using London Bridge began to face delays in January due to rebuilding work as part of the government-sponsored ^6.5bn Thameslink Programme.
In March, there were chaotic scenes at London Bridge, which rail union RMT described as "life-threatening", as passengers jumped barriers to avoid crushes on the concourse.
The regulator said that Network Rail had failed to liaise properly with operators to understand the extent of the disruption, and had also used flawed data to compile timetables.
It said Network Rail had "significantly underestimated the impact of the Thameslink programme on performance, which was further exacerbated by a timetable that was not robust".

ORR chief executive Richard Price said: "The scale of the delays suffered by passengers was central to our decision to fine."
"The penalty sends a clear message to the Network Rail board: Network Rail must urgently rectify these errors and deliver the reliability of services that passengers have paid for," he added.
Errors in timetabling in Scotland were not picked up due to quality assurance issues there, ORR said.
The fine either has to be paid to the Treasury, or instead, the ^2m will have to be used to improve customer services beyond what is normally expected, a spokeswoman for the ORR said.

Job losses?
The Rail, Maritime and Transport union said the Network Rail fine was "a ludicrous way to run a railway" as it was "effectively the taxpayer fining themselves". Network Rail is a public-sector body.
RMT general secretary Mick Cash said: "The fines will have to be paid for by axing works ‎or cutting staff, creating a vicious cycle of decline that is self-defeating and will just mean more fines and more cuts in the future, which is a nonsense."
He added that "fragmentation and a proliferation of contractors and agencies on our tracks... are compromising infrastructure projects".

A Network Rail spokesman said that it was too early to speculate as to whether the fine would lead to job losses.
The public sector body has already had to halt some rail improvement works, however.
In June a ^500m project to electrify the Midland Mainline was "paused" by the government.

Personally I don't think NR will take the slightest bit of notice of the fine.  I find their response (the usual stuck record of how wonderful we are and we are delivering the biggest projects ever) to be beyond the pale.  BR delivered much bigger projects in its time with far bigger financial constraints.  Of course the current NR management don't know that because they got rid of all the good and experienced staff who did  :'(

It could be argued that NR is a civil engineering and heavy maintenance company that manages specialist contractors, doesn't run trains and therefore railway operating experience is not required.  In a similar vein, personnel working for BAA and running Heathrow airport aren't required to be pilots. However, it is handy to know how much runway and parking space differing types of aircraft require at different times of the day and in different weathers. 

But there doesn't appear to be anyone in the very senior NR positions with any railway operating experience at all.  Yes granted, there are those with experience in safety critical and heavily regulated industries, but not railways.  They may well have worked on large complex projects with eye watering budgets, but don't appear to appreciate when a project is too complex for a given amount of time.  When project people say a job will need a seven day possession, but the Train Operating Companies say that they are only prepared to grant a 5 day possession, then something has to give and will require an adult conversation to agree what will be re-scheduled or dropped.  What is needed are senior people who can effectively challenge project teams but who can also square up to the DFT, ORR and TOC's and who can talk from a position of experience.  They have the experience and gravitas to say that just ploughing ahead and trying to do seven days work in five is risk laden not "efficient" (a phrase beloved of the ORR and our political masters), and here's the reasons why.

The baby was thrown out with the bathwater in the early days of NR.  Project Violet identified many middle management types who would be surplus to requirements after the major re-organisation that was to follow; and those who were just "time serving" and under performing.  Whilst granted it is often necessary to cull dead wood in any organisation, however unpalatable.  But an organisation's corporate "experience" and "wisdom" lays with its middle managers.  Those people who may well have been railway apprentices, learnt their trade, have done their time and been around the block a few times.  Replacing these with enthusiastic (and cheaper) wide eyed, inexperienced civil engineering graduates brings new blood that is granted, but the checks and balances brought to the table by experience has been lost for ever.

Roads minister Andrew Jones fears that the ambitious highways construction programme could be hit by the same crisis as the troubled rail investment plan.

[snip]

Jones is in charge of ensuring Highways England can effectively manage its own ^15bn programme - but admits to being worried.

^My concern is about delivery,^ he told the conference.

^The [rail] announcement 10 days ago [was because] delivery has faltered.

^It is about having the capacity to deliver. And it is what worries me most about the roads [investment]. I want Highways England ready to run with schemes worth ^3bn a year.^

Jones said sudden growth in the road building supply chain would have to coincide with surges in rail, nuclear power and flood defence work.

^All these projects have entered the competition for ambitious recruits,^ he said. ^The government^s commitment to create 3M apprenticeships will help. But we need the industry to get behind the plan, too.

^So when the road consultations have finished and the work goes out to tender, we will ask - do bidders have access to the skills to get the job done?^

[snip]

It is easy to blame NR, but it can't be just them or we would not be hearing the same story from New Civil Engineer 16th - 23rd July 2015 - Does it sound familiar?

Roads minister: I worry about capacity to deliver projects (http://www.nce.co.uk/news/transport/roads-minister-i-worry-about-capacity-to-deliver-projects/8686069.article) [May be behind pay wall]

Network Rail privatisation 'on the table'

The executive asked to come up with a plan to revive Network Rail's fortunes has said she cannot rule out recommending privatisation.

In an interview with the BBC, Nicola Shaw said that a partial or total sell-off "was absolutely on the table; it can't not be."

Ms Shaw was drafted in by the government after Network Rail's upgrade plans fell apart last summer.

Work to electrify key lines had been dogged by delays and mounting costs.

Ministers paused two of the projects, in the Midlands and across the Pennines, and replaced the chairman, while a number of reviews are carried out.

Ms Shaw, who is the boss of Britain's only high speed line, HS1, was asked to come up with a report before the Budget next spring. She said there were a whole range of issues that had to be considered and she was keen to hear what people had to say.

She said she would also recommend changes to the regulator if necessary. "I don't believe there is one perfect answer. I think there is something that we'll go forward with for the next period of evolution of the railway. I don't think there has to be a big row. The challenge for me is how to bring people together. To find a way forward that people will support."

The future of Network Rail - which controls 2,500 stations as well as tracks, tunnels and level crossings - has been up in the air ever since the embarrassing admission last June that, just one year into a five year upgrade plan, the company had lost control of timetables and budgets.

Problems came to a head when the company was re-classified as a public sector body in September last year. Overnight, it meant it could no longer borrow extra money from private sources to fill the funding gap.

I've been told by those close to the situation that the impact of those changes took everyone by surprise.

It also meant the company's ^37.7bn debt moved onto the government's books.

One source suggested that before the change "ministers might turn a blind eye" to the extra costs, as long as the job was done. This is no longer possible.

Insiders also talked of a failure to check if they had sufficient numbers of qualified engineers to carry out the necessary work.

And they underestimated how difficult it would be to upgrade and electrify the Great Western Line, which dates from Victorian times, while running a service on it.

Three reviews are under way.
- One looking into what went wrong, due in a few weeks.
- Network Rail's new chairman Sir Peter Hendy is looking at what they can afford to upgrade and how long it will take. It is likely to be published in November.
- Nicola Shaw's report into how to change the structure and financing of Network Rail due in the spring.

Ms Shaw has a difficult job, navigating a wide range of views, including those of the unions and the new Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn who wants to see the railways back in public hands.

"I am talking to unions, and to representatives of staff and to other members of different parties so I hope we have strong engagement because I think it matters."

Privatisation looks a really good solution  :P

NR difficulty in delivering programme so huge cost risk
NR Debt said to be nearly unsustainably high
Raising risk capital on market very difficult

Result would be that borrowing costs would go through the roof and there would have to be even more government subsidy

Have you forgotten about Hatfield and Potters Bar ?

Push to place the more routine maintenance out to contract leaving NR with a "rapid response faulting teams"

Many thanks for posting that update, SandTEngineer: I've simply moved it and merged it with this ongoing discussion here. CfN.  ;)