The Anonymous Widower

Is Network Rail Only Part Of The Problem?

We like to have something simple to blame for our troubles!

I have just read this article in Rail Magazine entitled Carne opposes five-year funding cycle for big projects. This is an extract.

Network Rail Chief Executive Mark Carne told the Public Accounts Committee  “there is no doubt at all in my view” that the Great Western Main Line electrification programme should have been managed in the same way as projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink.

“Personally, I think it [five-year funding cycles] is a really good way of funding ongoing operations, maintenance and renewals. But I am not sure it is a really good way of funding major investment projects,” he said.

We can look at various rail projects, that have been successfully completed without too much trouble, in the last few years.

Borders Railway

The Borders Railway seems to have been completed on time and on budget.

The only problem so far seems to be crowded trains and difficulty in finding more carriages.

So what’s new? This is only another manifestation of New Railway Syndrome.

Chords, Curves and Flyovers

Network Rail have also successfully built a few short railway lines to make the rail network and trains, easier to manage. This is a selection.

• The Allington Chord removed a bottleneck on the East Coast Main Line.
• The Hitchin Flyover removed another bottleneck on the East Coast Main Line.
• The Ipswich Chord allowed better access for freight trains to Felixstowe Docks and removed a lot of truck journeys from the roads.
• The Todmorden Curve allowed trains from Burnley to reach Manchester.

The only one with a problem was the Todmorden Curve, where Northern Rail had trouble finding trains for the new service.

Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway Upgrade

The Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway has been upgraded from Doncaster to Peterborough via Lincoln to act as a freight route away from the East Coast Main Line.

I talked about this upgrade in Project Managers Having Fun In The East.

This was no small project, as it involved resignalling, improving nearly a hundred miles of track and dealing with well over a hundred bridges and culverts.

It cost £330million and few people have heard of it.

But there doesn’t appear to have been any problems with the delivery of the project.

Rebuilding Birmingham New Street, Kings Cross, Manchester Victoria and Reading Stations

The rebuilding of these stations has not been trivial.

• The Birmingham New Stret rebuilding had its design and planning problems, but cost of around £500million
• The King’s Cross restoration cost £500million
• The Manchester Victroria renovation cost £55million.
• The Reading station redevelopment and some other works cost £850million

All were delivered on time, with the exception of Reading, which was delivered a year ahead of schedule.

You could add into this section, the substantial upgrades at Leeds, Newcastle and Peterborough.

Stafford Area Improvements Program

The Stafford Area Improvements Program is a £250million improvement to the West Coast Main Line.

It removes a bottleneck and allows extra trains on the line.

But few people have ever heard of it.

Summing Up Well-Managed Projects

So it would appear that Network Rail can manage some projects well and deliver them on time and on budget.

In my experience, they do seem particularly good at stations and always keep the trains running as much as possible.

If these projects have one thing in common, it is that they could all be well-defined before the project was started.

The Projects That Didn’t Go So Well

The following projects didn’t go as well as the previous ones.

Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Program

The Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Program is a £1billion program to upgrade and electrify the lines between the two largest Scottish cities.

It has had a rather chequered history and the original program has been reduced in scope.

Wikipedia says this in its entry about the project

It was reported that the project was delayed for up to three years due to the need to negotiate for the demolition of the west wing of the Millennium Hotel and works on Winchburgh Tunnel.

It has not been an easy project.

Great Western Main Line Upgrade

The Great Western Main Line Upgrade involved resignalling, electrification and a lot of track and station work on the Great Western Main Line.

To say it has been the project that keeps on wanting more time and money would not be an understatement.

This article in Rail Magazine says that the project could be two years late and cost three times as much as original estimates.

I have no insight into what has gone wrong, but there are several factors that have conspired against the project.

• Most electrification in the UK has been done in a series of phases, but on this project, they went for a faster approach, using a special train, which hasn’t worked very well.
• There have been planning problems in places like Bath, Goring and Oxford.
• The scale of the project is very large, with over a hundred bridges and tunnels to be modified.
• Politicians have changed the project several times.

It has been an unmitigated disaster.

However, I do feel that the engineers have got out the fag packets and envelopes and that they will find a way of getting this railway running under electric power. Or at least partially!

Politics is the science of spin and illusion, whereas engineering is the science of the possible.

North Western Electrification

The electrification in the North West, should have been a simple project, as the country is flat and the engineers must know the busy lines between Blackpool, Bolton, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Wigan like the back of their hands. It’s also a join the dots exercise with the electrification, so this should just be connected to the main line electrification at Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Wigan.

But the benign flat lands have bitten hard, just like they bit George Stephenson.

My generation grew up with boyhood stories of George Stephenson’s problems as he crossed Chat Moss and where did his twenty-first Century successors have trouble, whilst electrifying Liverpool to Manchester? Chat Moss!

They’ve also suffered the well-publicised problems of the reconstruction of the Farnworth Tunnel and several other issues on the Manchester to Preston Line.

I think Network Rail appreciated the problems before they started and made the North West Electrification, more of a series of smaller projecs, than one large one.

The project is now on course for a two year delay, but the project now looks to be more likely to be completed.

Ordsall Chord

The Ordsall Chord is on the face of it, a simple project that should have been built years ago, to connect Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly stations and allow a large increase in number and quality of TransPennine services.

If anybody doubts the value of the Ordsall Chord, then read this article in the Manchester Evening News.

But sadly, the project has been delayed for many years, firstly by politicians and then by a veracious litigant.

I suspect that any Mayor of Manchester, would have built this important piece of railway many years ago.

Thameslink

Network Rail would probably say that the Thameslink upgrade is going well. Looking at the massive bridges and embankments, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have added it to the list of failing projects, as there is no denying that they had their problems last Christmas, when they changed all of the routing. Network Rail received a £2million fine for their part in the chaos.

The Thameslink upgrade has been contentious and a long time coming, as it was originally approved in 2006.

I know there has been a major recession and effectively two changes of government since then, but the outcome when the project is delivered in 2018(Hopefully?), will be the same now, as was proposed a dozen years ago.

I think some major mistakes have been made.

• Network Rail were bullied by politicians to abandon their plan to terminate Wimbledon Loop services at Blackfriars, which would have taken pressure off the central tunnel.
• A protracted tendering process for mew trains, resulted in an interim fleet of Class 387 trains being delivered to fill in before the new Class 700 trains. Any sensible person would say, that Thameslink and Crossrail should have very similar trains.
• Before the major timetable change at Christmas 2014, the East London Line should have been running five-car trains and possibly more services, so make up for the reduced London Bridge services.

I would also have seen if by increasing other services, they could take the pressure off the overcrowded routes through London Bridge and on Thameslink.

In my view the project management of Thameslink has not been good. But then it is a London project managed nationally and responsible to Central Government. Crossrail on the other hand is a separate project, which is more under the control of Transport for London.

Summing Up The Bad Projects

These projects have various themes running through them.

• You could argue that the recession of 2008 and three changes of government have not done these projects any good.
• Public protest has caused delays and in the case of Thameslink unwelcome changes.
• Some of the projects don’t seem to have an independent structure that makes it easier to get things done and for the public to relate to the project. Thameslink for instance doesn’t have Crossrail’s openness.
• The time and budget constraints put on the projects by politicians have probably been a tad unrealistic.

It is my view, that the project management of these projects could have been a lot better.

I also feel, that Network Rail didn’t seem to have the strength to say No to politicians.

Is Mark Carne Right?

His first point is this.

There is no doubt at all in my view, that the Great Western Main Line electrification programme should have been managed in the same way as projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink

He is generally right on this, although I think Thameslink could learn from some of the actions of Crossrail, in the way they deal with passengers and public who are inconvenienced.

Thameslink is an information desert. If you tell people nothing and just give them hassle, you’ll reap your just rewards.

Mark Carne’s second point is this.

Personally, I think it [five-year funding cycles] is a really good way of funding ongoing operations, maintenance and renewals. But I am not sure it is a really good way of funding major investment projects.

In the 1960s and 1970s, it was a cardinal sin with large projects to mix them in with ongoing maintenance and general operation. Or it certainly was in ICI. One accountant told me that the separation , means you don’t get complicated lines of management and it controls costs better.

So it is my view that larger projects should be managed on an independent basis.

Network Rail Must Say No!

I think Network Rail can be accused of not fighting its corner against politicians and local vexatious litigants.

Hopefully Sir Peter Hendy’s Arrival at the top will help.

Projects Should Be More Like Crossrail

In some ways Crossrail is a project, that is broken in quite a few distinct smaller projects, which can be delivered in sequence.

Perhaps because of its size, it seems to have more sub-projects than say Thameslink or the Great Western Electrification.

But although some of the sub-projects are large on Crossrail, they do seem to be much smaller in scope than some of the sub-projects on the other projects.

If I look at some of the troubled projects, their structure and order is often more complicated than the much bigger Crossrail.

Both Thameslink and much of the electrification involve bring in new trains. Crossrail has the luxury of being able to introduce its new trains on the almost separate lines of the Shenfield Metro. So if the new Class 345 trains have some teething troubles, they will hopefully be very little collateral disruption to other routes.

Conclusions

Looking at this, I feel that the biggest problem is when Network Rail tries to manage large projects, especially when they are in a political or protester-rich environment.

They seem to manage better with smaller projects or one that are less politically important. But surely smaller projects are easier to give to a contractor to do the complete job.

The Crossrail structure of an independent project, seems to give a better result for large projects. In this independent structure, I suspect that the politicians and protesters still have influence, but this is direct to top management of the project, in hopefully a controlled manner.

Perhaps, all projects should be independent?

Years ago, when I worked for ICI, they used to like everyone working on a particularly project to be located closely together, if that was possible. They had found it got a better design, that was delivered faster and for less money. Communication between everybody on the project was also very good.

 

 

 

 

 

November 14, 2015 Posted by AnonW | Transport/Travel | Network Rail, Trains, TransPennine Express | Leave a comment