Great Western Electrification
Discussion
According to news reports, the electrification of some of the lines is being "deferred" due to increasing costs.
By "increasing costs", they mean (sit down, pour yourself a stiff drink) up from £870-odd million in 2013 to £2.8billion now.
How, in the name of all that is holy, unholy, agnostic, of no particular faith, did they get the cost so unbelievably wrong? In the space of 3 years?
By "increasing costs", they mean (sit down, pour yourself a stiff drink) up from £870-odd million in 2013 to £2.8billion now.
How, in the name of all that is holy, unholy, agnostic, of no particular faith, did they get the cost so unbelievably wrong? In the space of 3 years?
Pickled said:
Has any large infrastructure project ever come in on time and on budget?
I believe "Crossrail" is very close to "On-time and On Budget" but that has been very much a TfL project. With the GW project there is such a mix of responsibilities between the DfT,NR,ROCs etc and the specifications seemed to change on a regular basis so it is no surprise that costs are so far out from the original estimate.Flying Phil said:
I believe "Crossrail" is very close to "On-time and On Budget" but that has been very much a TfL project. With the GW project there is such a mix of responsibilities between the DfT,NR,ROCs etc and the specifications seemed to change on a regular basis so it is no surprise that costs are so far out from the original estimate.
Why do the specs change? Surely it's just Survey route – quantify tasks – install gantries – instal catenary.It depends how good their research is. If they do all the estimates for pant, labour, property cost, fluctuating pounds etc properly it shouldn't be that far out.
HS2 for example have underestimated their property costs in my opinion. By some distance.
Crossrail is something of a modern marvel, to be honest. Though TfL are generally the slickest of the slick in these things. No one controls a bigger budget for transport projects I believe
HS2 for example have underestimated their property costs in my opinion. By some distance.
Crossrail is something of a modern marvel, to be honest. Though TfL are generally the slickest of the slick in these things. No one controls a bigger budget for transport projects I believe
Vocal Minority said:
It depends how good their research is. If they do all the estimates for pant, labour, property cost, fluctuating pounds etc properly it shouldn't be that far out.
HS2 for example have underestimated their property costs in my opinion. By some distance.
Crossrail is something of a modern marvel, to be honest. Though TfL are generally the slickest of the slick in these things. No one controls a bigger budget for transport projects I believe
So I hear too, that a delay in the electrification means the trains have to be dual fuel, and will not be as fast as the trains they are replacing. Sounds like a nightmare....HS2 for example have underestimated their property costs in my opinion. By some distance.
Crossrail is something of a modern marvel, to be honest. Though TfL are generally the slickest of the slick in these things. No one controls a bigger budget for transport projects I believe
And don't talk to me about Crossrail. As a regular commuter to the City, this should be a great improvement.
But I noticed the other day that the official trip time from Maidenhead to Liverpool St has crept up by 2 minutes to 48mins. In my experience, the current arrangement of Train/Tube can do the same journey around about 5 minutes quicker. I hope they still put on the commuter expresses, which can do the trip from PAD to MAI in 18 minutes, which will be half the time of Crossrail.
As with the electrification balls up, it feels like progress makes us go backwards.
The problem is that, ime, if you accurately budget any large project it immediately falls into the "too expensive" category, and hence will never get approved. So what happens to all these projects is they are under-budgetted, get started, go wildly over budget, and end up costing what the original estimate should have been in the first place!
As we seem to have little enthusiasm for large infrastructure projects these days, despite an ageing and out-of-date, under-capacity system, it seems the "under estimate, over budget finish" has become SOP......
As we seem to have little enthusiasm for large infrastructure projects these days, despite an ageing and out-of-date, under-capacity system, it seems the "under estimate, over budget finish" has become SOP......
Yertis said:
Flying Phil said:
I believe "Crossrail" is very close to "On-time and On Budget" but that has been very much a TfL project. With the GW project there is such a mix of responsibilities between the DfT,NR,ROCs etc and the specifications seemed to change on a regular basis so it is no surprise that costs are so far out from the original estimate.
Why do the specs change? Surely it's just Survey route – quantify tasks – install gantries – instal catenary......oh you can only work at night for a few hours and the lines must be kept running for most of the time as there are very limited alternative routes. Not an easy job!
Paul Clifton the BBC South travel fella was saying last night that the super duper, super expensive train putting down bases for the overhead lines was supposed to do 22 a night. It only does about 6.
So the taxpayer/fare payer has spent millions on something which performs little better than two men and a JCB.
So the taxpayer/fare payer has spent millions on something which performs little better than two men and a JCB.
Europa1 said:
According to news reports, the electrification of some of the lines is being "deferred" due to increasing costs.
By "increasing costs", they mean (sit down, pour yourself a stiff drink) up from £870-odd million in 2013 to £2.8billion now.
How, in the name of all that is holy, unholy, agnostic, of no particular faith, did they get the cost so unbelievably wrong? In the space of 3 years?
The answers are in the National Audit Office (NAO) report.By "increasing costs", they mean (sit down, pour yourself a stiff drink) up from £870-odd million in 2013 to £2.8billion now.
How, in the name of all that is holy, unholy, agnostic, of no particular faith, did they get the cost so unbelievably wrong? In the space of 3 years?
Firstly, whilst the BBC (and probably others) have reported that the original cost was estimated at £874m but this figure doesn't appear in the NAO report. The NAO state that the original estimate was £1.1bn. However, this still means that costs have increased by £1.7bn in 3 years.
Secondly the reasons for the increase:
1. The re-signalling work between Bristol and Swindon commenced late because another on the route took longer to complete, combined with a shortage of of people with the skills to design and commission signal systems.
2. Network Rail (NR) had not obtained planning permission in time to start major construction work at Oxford Station and on several historic bridges in Oxfordshire.
3. The original plan relied on a new 'factory train', carrying out work over night. The plan assumed that 18 piles (or foundations) per shift. Although the train is capable of installing 24 piles per shift it can't do this routinely. On average, only 5 piles are installed per shift. In order to try and avoid further delays NR resorted to traditional methods for constructing foundations which were more labour intensive and expensive.
4. NR failed to put in place an adequate plan to obtain all the consents from local authorities to carry out out the work (1,800 separate consents) which has resulted in delays. In hindsight, NR believe that they should have produced a more detailed plan and asked the Secretary of State to approve planning permission for the whole project in one go.
TL:DR
Over-confidence in new technology and inadequate planning has led to delays and increased costs.
Flying Phil said:
Pickled said:
Has any large infrastructure project ever come in on time and on budget?
I believe "Crossrail" is very close to "On-time and On Budget" but that has been very much a TfL project. With the GW project there is such a mix of responsibilities between the DfT,NR,ROCs etc and the specifications seemed to change on a regular basis so it is no surprise that costs are so far out from the original estimate.It's a cluster f
k really. We've also ordered the class 802 version of the Hitachis which have more powerful engines and bigger fuel tanks as they will be running diesel an awful lot. GWR will not be running any electric only hitachis.My understanding is that because they won't be electrifying the whole line, they will have to add diesel engines to these electric trains, adding weight and slowing them down quite significantly.
Such a joke, particularly considering the disruption it's already caused here (I'm in Bath), not electrifying Bath to Bristol is madness.
Such a joke, particularly considering the disruption it's already caused here (I'm in Bath), not electrifying Bath to Bristol is madness.
ukaskew said:
My understanding is that because they won't be electrifying the whole line, they will have to add diesel engines to these electric trains, adding weight and slowing them down quite significantly.
I don't think that is correct. According to the NAO report the trains were ordered as bi-mode (electric and diesel) before the electrification project was approved. The trains were ordered as bi-mode trains as it was known that the full route would not be electrified at the time the trains go into service but would be electrified at some point during their working lives.ukaskew said:
My understanding is that because they won't be electrifying the whole line, they will have to add diesel engines to these electric trains, adding weight and slowing them down quite significantly.
Such a joke, particularly considering the disruption it's already caused here (I'm in Bath), not electrifying Bath to Bristol is madness.
Although they are mentioning stopping at Thingley Junction, which is between Chippenham and Bath. One would assume having spent the money on Box Tunnel they would carry on through. Such a joke, particularly considering the disruption it's already caused here (I'm in Bath), not electrifying Bath to Bristol is madness.
ralphrj said:
ukaskew said:
My understanding is that because they won't be electrifying the whole line, they will have to add diesel engines to these electric trains, adding weight and slowing them down quite significantly.
I don't think that is correct. According to the NAO report the trains were ordered as bi-mode (electric and diesel) before the electrification project was approved. The trains were ordered as bi-mode trains as it was known that the full route would not be electrified at the time the trains go into service but would be electrified at some point during their working lives.I am looking forward to learning both the 387s and the Hitachi trains, however 165 wont be disappearing any time soon as they will be kept on for the branch lines (which were also canned) I personally think GWR are on a sticky wicket as one of the agreements for the franchise was 4 car electric train services to all Branch lines.
Next summer we will have power up to Maidenhead and Tilehurst to Didcot is done also.
miniman said:
ukaskew said:
My understanding is that because they won't be electrifying the whole line, they will have to add diesel engines to these electric trains, adding weight and slowing them down quite significantly.
Such a joke, particularly considering the disruption it's already caused here (I'm in Bath), not electrifying Bath to Bristol is madness.
Although they are mentioning stopping at Thingley Junction, which is between Chippenham and Bath. One would assume having spent the money on Box Tunnel they would carry on through. Such a joke, particularly considering the disruption it's already caused here (I'm in Bath), not electrifying Bath to Bristol is madness.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff