Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

For an in-house view, perhaps - from Civil Service World:

"How not to run a major project" – DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) in the firing line over Great Western rail upgrade

Public Accounts Committee says accountability system for major electrification programme was too complex, and casts doubt on cost estimates even after £1.2bn increase

The Department for Transport has been urged to learn the lessons of "serious failings" in one of its key rail modernisation programmes, with MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) warning that major problems with the DfT and Network Rail's Great Western upgrade risk being repeated in future schemes.

The Public Accounts Committee last reported on the department's plan to electrify the Great Western Main Line, which runs between Maidenhead and Cardiff, in 2015, after it emerged that estimated costs for the programme had risen by £1.2bn in a single year, with the completion date slipping by up to three years.

The latest report from the cross-party group of MPs attempts to dig into the detail, and finds that there were "significant failings" in the design, planning and costing of the programme.

The PAC says that the "tripartite" system of accountability for the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) project, which saw the DfT setting high-level requirements, and the Office of Rail and Road then scrutinising Network Rail’s plans, was "too complex", with the DfT failing to scrutinise Network Rail's cost estimates effectively "despite the very significant sums of public money at risk".

"Depite being liable to pay £400,000 per day to lease new trains that could not be used until the overhead electrification was complete, the department did not adequately challenge Network Rail’s plans to carry out the infrastructure work," the report finds.

According to the PAC's report, the department also did not do enough to integrate the different elements of the rail modernisation programme "in a joined-up way", instead managing electrification and the roll-out of new trains as separate projects until March 2015.

The committee notes that the DfT has since overhauled its approach to infrastructure planning, and says it is now "trying to align decisions about infrastructure improvements with franchise timetables".

But the MPs remain unconvinced over whether the electrification of the GWR "can be delivered to the revised target of December 2018 and budget of £2.8 billion".

Speaking during PAC's inquiry, DfT permanent secretary Philip Rutnam – who will soon be moving on from the transport ministry to head up the Home Office – said the DfT had made efforts to get at the "root causes" of weaknesses in the rail system since a high-profile blunder with the West Coast rail franchise in 2012.

"Within the department we have greatly strengthened and clarified accountability," he said.

"We have a very clear structure of accountability for our role as client and sponsor of major projects and programmes. We have done an enormous amount to develop our project and programme expertise and profession, and our commercial expertise. We have enormously expanded our approach to assurance.

But he added: "Unfortunately, those changes were too late to catch this one. They have, however, been really important in the way in which we have approached the reset of this project from 2015 onwards. Although it is not perfect, the improved performance since 2015 owes a lot to Network Rail but also certainly owes something to a greater maturity and depth of challenge within the department."

The group of MPs, however, remains "concerned that serious failings in planning and delivering this programme will affect the case for future investment in rail programmes".

Launching the report, PAC chair Meg Hillier said the Great Western Programme had "hit taxpayers hard and left many people angry and frustrated".

And she added: "This is a stark example of how not to run a major project, from flawed planning at the earliest stage to weak accountability and what remain serious questions about the reasons for embarking on the work in the first place.

"The sums of public money wasted are appalling — not least the £330 million additional costs the Department for Transport will have to pay to keep the trains running because of delays to electrification.

"The department failed to adequately challenge Network Rail's plans to carry out the infrastructure work and, even now, casts doubt on whether electrification work on this and other lines is even necessary.

"Government accepts it got this project badly wrong and must now demonstrate it has learned the lessons."

Responding to the PAC's findings, rail minister Paul Maynard said the GWR modernisation project represented "the most substantial programme of work undertaken on the railway since the Victoria era", and insisted it would "deliver better services for passengers, with new trains and thousands more seats".

He added: “We continually assess our investment decisions to ensure they deliver maximum value for the taxpayer. As the report acknowledges, since autumn 2015 we have overhauled the way the department commissions and oversees work from NR^» (Network Rail - home page) – including a clear structure of accountability, with new governance processes that include independent assurance on cost and deliverability.”

[broadgage]

What a fiasco !
It might have been cheaper to forget the whole idea and build some new HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) *

We have had years of disruption and damage to existing infrastructure, with several more years of the same to come. The end result is a downgraded service with inter urban (at best) DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) replacing proper inter city trains. Sufficient wires have been installed to close down the service in windy weather, but not enough to give any significant improvements in journey times.
The downgrade of signalling from track circuits to axle counters appears to have permanently reduced reliability.

It remains to be seen how reliable the new DMU service will be in practice, but a cynic like me would observe that a lot remains to go wrong.

And of course the ballooning cost has got to come from somewhere, probably a lot of hidden fare increases.

The drain on the public finances will lead to calls to scrap or least to pause other railway projects.

*not of course an exact copy of a now decades old train, but broadly similar in overall design with a power car at each end and no underfloor engines. 12 coaches in length, first class one end and standard class the other end with a buffet in between. Internal fit out and style to be "proper inter city" and not "modern DMU style"

[SandTEngineer]

Responding to the PAC's findings, rail minister Paul Maynard said the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) modernisation project represented "the most substantial programme of work undertaken on the railway since the Victoria era"

.....short memories there then.  I seem to recall a substantial project in the 1960s that resignalled and electrified the West Coast Main Line (and yes, I do acknowledge that it ran out of money and was delayed (there is a very interesting document concerning this here: http://www.bath.ac.uk/e-journals/jtep/pdf/Volume_111_No_1_69-95.pdf).  But who am I to take away the glory (sorry, mistyped that; meant to say excuses) from the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)......

[onthecushions]

I blame privatisation (or rather fragmentation) entirely.

A system for spending money (even tarmacing my drive) that has three independent areas of decision making (DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) at the top, ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) stirring the pot in the middle and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) trying to cook up the result at the bottom via some ever sharp but not always competent contractors is a recipe (to continue the metaphor) for burnt toast.

A British Railways Board whether a state agency or a plc, with a CCM&EE, would not have lost the plot (at least so badly). It would have tackled the job incrementally, extending the Crossrail wiring to cover the outer suburban services first, so that problems and lessons (such as buried cables, ugly supports etc) could be overcome and learned in a smaller, less costly project. The suburban EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)'s would then be running and earning while the work progressed Westwards. Instead, we started at Didcot Jn and worked East.... 

Point enablement and point accountability. - TQM!

OTC

[IndustryInsider]

*not of course an exact copy of a now decades old train, but broadly similar in overall design with a power car at each end and no underfloor engines. 12 coaches in length, first class one end and standard class the other end with a buffet in between. Internal fit out and style to be "proper inter city" and not "modern DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) style"

Nice in theory, but imagine the cost of modifying signalling and platforms (particularly at the terminal stations), for a train of 14 vehicles.  Also, those two power cars would have to be mighty beefy to shift a train of that length and weight at 125mph.  That amount of seating would also be a massive over provision for much of the day on most services.

[didcotdean]

The web like nature of the Western network makes it difficult to extract value from pure electrification (no bimodes!) until you have done more or less the lot excluding minor branches. This was not so much the case with the West/East coast - and wouldn't be with the Midland Mainline, which I think had a better financial case. Why the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) wasn't done first was a mixture of the political and the practical. Everything seems to be coming to the end of its life at the roughly same time on the Western; arguably the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are already 5 years overdue for replacement, and the other diesels can't meet the demand at peak times especially. Longer distance trains have required a higher and higher density of seating to cope; whilst I know that hasn't been to everyone's satisfaction it has probably been done as best it could have been.

Possibly a trick was missed not electrifying the network as far as Oxford and Newbury well before now - maybe as far back as the introduction of the turbos. Commuter traffic historically took rather a backseat on the western compared with some other main lines, but it seems incredulous that 2-car turbos are still operating some peak suburban services. However, I couldn't have seen the HSTs soldiering on whilst all that was done first, notwithstanding issues over their future non-compliance.

The point about the demand being more peaky is also a valid one; some of the HSTs still go around in the middle of the day much more than half empty.

[broadgage]

*not of course an exact copy of a now decades old train, but broadly similar in overall design with a power car at each end and no underfloor engines. 12 coaches in length, first class one end and standard class the other end with a buffet in between. Internal fit out and style to be "proper inter city" and not "modern DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) style"

Nice in theory, but imagine the cost of modifying signalling and platforms (particularly at the terminal stations), for a train of 14 vehicles.  Also, those two power cars would have to be mighty beefy to shift a train of that length and weight at 125mph.  That amount of seating would also be a massive over provision for much of the day on most services.

I was not proposing that ALL services would be formed of new 12 car trains,, refurbished old HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) would have a part to play for the less busy services.

Anyway it is too late now for such speculation, it looks as though we are going to be stuck for a generation with a partly electrified railway that is mainly worked by short inter-urban DMUs, with limited mileage under electric power.

The various problems and overruns so far do not fill me with confidence that the planned GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) electrification will EVER be completed in full.
The actual electrification structures certainly seem much more substantial than those used on the failed East coast scheme, so hopefully SOME lessons have been learnt.
Despite this I still expect a lot of weather induced failures and an increase in large scale disruption with intending passengers being advised not to travel.
Falling trees will be an ever increasing problem in the absence of any effective programme to cut them down.
The increasingly untidy trackside gives more debris to be windblown into the OHLE.
The centralised and computerised electrical systems give more scope for IT issues stopping everything.

And of course the cost overruns may lead to value engineering some later bits of the works.

[IndustryInsider]

I was not proposing that ALL services would be formed of new 12 car trains,, refurbished old HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) would have a part to play for the less busy services.

So you'd have all the cost of infrastructure modification to run only some trains with 14 vehicles, with the balance made up with refurbished (again) HST's trying to soldier on after more than 40 years of hard front line duties?  One sounds unworkably expensive and the other a temporary stay of execution at best.

As you say though, new trains are on their way and fortunately they were able to be modified fairly easily to cope with the electrification issues, and whilst I see problems ahead I don't think it's the disaster you portray - provided their diesel engines are powerful enough not to hinder journey times too much and enough route miles are electrified. 

On the route mileage issue, let's not forget that the majority of both London to Swansea and Bristol trunk routes are committed to be electrified (I would guess it must be about 80%).  You make it sound like only a small percentage will be.

[Electric train]

Airport Junction to Maidenhead switch-on has been delayed again so not happening this weekend.

I would say I am shocked ........... but as there's no juice getting a shock is not possible 

The energisation process of section proving is a quick process, but does need the knitting to be in place, what may take time if its need is the immunisation tests

Hmmm - project too big for GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) maybe?

Also, if Government ask NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to perform a project "we want to electrify the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)", do you then say 'hang on a few months while we do a GRIP set of reports. It might take a year or two as its a mammoth project"

Can between a x and a y, I feel.

Having implemented many large projects over the past 50 years I can assure you that it would have been a very brave person who tried to shortcut the NR GRIP process, which after all was introduced by a certain Chief Executive by the name of Coucher. He didn't hesitate in finding a way of getting rid of anybody if they didn't follow 'his' rules.  My personal view, following recent involvement in some significant resignalling projects, is that NR have lost all the personell with the necessary experience and skill set to be able to stand up with confidence and say NO.

I agree with SandTEngineer there has been a massive skill fade within NR, some by natural wastage but a large part of it was restructuring of the Projects part of NR lots of very experienced engineers, project managers, commercial mangers made redundant with a heavy reliance being placed on suppliers "knowing what they are doing" and yes they do bt NR has lost a lot of its "informed buyer" knowledge.

There was also blank cheque writing by the political parties in the lead up to the 2010 general election all the parties wanting the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railways electrified at a pace and cost that had never been done on a high speed, high intensity railway network anywhere in the world and without investing in the real key part ....................

A skilled work force

[Adelante_CCT]

provided their diesel engines are powerful enough not to hinder journey times too much. 

Not sure if it was mentioned at the time but the test run they did a few weeks ago between PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) and BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) included short stops at Reading and Swindon, and I believe from start to stop between the two it arrived Swindon marginally quicker doing 110 on diesel than an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) can. (Due to increased acceleration etc) Therefore I would hope no journey times will be hindered compared to today despite electrification issues

[Thatcham Crossing]

Evidence of further recent metalwork erection at various locations between Southcote Junction and Aldermaston during a run to London and back today. Still a lot to do in this area though.

Near to Slough, I noticed some gaps in the wiring, notably the cable at the top of the OHLE, the one usually suspended from a single insulator....don't know what it's for but imagine it needs to be in place before the juice can be switched on? At one point it was lying on the ground between a couple of the OHLE uprights.

[IndustryInsider]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) that's the ATF wire, which doesn't need to be in place until intensive running under electric power is introduced.  So it would be OK for the limited number of trains planned from May to operate without it I think. ElectricTrain will correct me if I'm wrong!

[TonyK]

For an in-house view, perhaps - from Civil Service World:

"How not to run a major project" – DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) in the firing line over Great Western rail upgrade

The PAC says that the "tripartite" system of accountability for the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) project, which saw the DfT setting high-level requirements, and the Office of Rail and Road then scrutinising Network Rail’s plans, was "too complex"

So a three-ring circus where infrastructure, procurement of rolling stock, and operation are kept in separate bubbles. directed by a government department that tries to pretend it isn't meddling to give the impression this is an entirely private operation, with the whole shoot-bang works overseen by a quasi-independent body that isn't entirely sure whether it should be keeping it safe or counting the beans is "too complex"?

I would say "Couldn't run a bath", but I'm not sure to whom I would direct the insult. For sure, Margaret Hodge is overly fond of her own voice, but there is a problem that obviously needs solving before things can move on properly.

[Rhydgaled]

What a fiasco !
It might have been cheaper to forget the whole idea and build some new HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) *

[snip]


*not of course an exact copy of a now decades old train, but broadly similar in overall design with a power car at each end and no underfloor engines. 12 coaches in length, first class one end and standard class the other end with a buffet in between. Internal fit out and style to be "proper inter city" and not "modern DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) style"

While I agree with you that an intercity train should have a buffet and not have underfloor engines, I think that word 'cheaper' needs to be considered very carefully. Had a new intercity diesel been built instead of electrification, the costs in terms of capital expenditure would undoubtedly have been less than IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) + electrification. However, the financial running costs of a diesel train in would be higher than an electric (not sure how they would compare to the expensive IEP deal) and the environmental costs of running intercity diesel trains flat out for at least the next 30 years would be very high compared to electrification. It even have been far longer than 30 years, given what little electrification skills remain from the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) would have well and truely died out by then, meaning we might never have got an electrified railway. We cannot afford another hitatus in electrification; keep knitting away slowly to build up and retain a skills base I say.

[grahame]

... keep knitting away slowly to build up and retain a skills base I say.

There is a huge logic in a rolling electrification program over the next 30 years, with the bimode trains coming to lines once there's a bit of wire up, and extending along until power reaches the far end. They can then move to another line  that's being electrified with fresh electric stock replacing them on the completed line.