Rail Maintenance Costs to Double...
Discussion
Cost to be passed on to passengers...
No doubt they'll have to squeeze motorists even harder to persuade them to use the unreliable dilapidated pieces of shit they have running (mostly) on the railways..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2902421.stm
No doubt they'll have to squeeze motorists even harder to persuade them to use the unreliable dilapidated pieces of shit they have running (mostly) on the railways..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2902421.stm
Rail repair bill doubles
The cost of running Britain's ailing rail network has doubled, according to the company created to replace Railtrack.
Network Rail said spending on the railways in the next three years would be more than £6bn a year, compared with the £3bn originally expected.
The figure will fuel speculation that the cost of keeping the network going is spiralling out of control.
It is also likely to feed through into ticket prices as Network Rail charges train operators more to use its track.
'Under-investment'
In its business plan, published on Monday, Network Rail said spending on the railways in 2001-06 would be £27bn.
That compares with a figure of £16.7bn allowed for this period by Rail Regulator Tom Winsor.
Mr Winsor will now have to take the revised figures into account as he prepares a report detailing how much Network Rail can charge the train operators.
Network Rail chairman Ian McAllister said: "It is now six months since Network Rail acquired Railtrack Plc and all our experience since then has confirmed our initial analysis.
"Britain's rail network is suffering from a huge legacy of under-investment."
Results
He went on: "We have a fragile network that has been starved of a steady rate of renewals for many years, resulting in poor performing infrastructure that needs more maintenance to carry ever more traffic.
"Network Rail is here to address the problem this legacy has left.
"Action is being taken, but time and patience is needed to see the changes we're making deliver results."
And they want us to use the railways....
My brother visited from Sweden recently. I told him to rent a car. But NO, he had to decide to travel around the country on business by rail.
Unsurpisingly every last journey involved a delay - some of which actually were detrimental to the business he intended to do.
He said: "I had been lulled into a false sense of security by the high quality of the Swedish Railways. I will not make the same mistake again."
Be in no doubt. The percentage of journies that can be made in Britain successfully by rail instead of car are LOW!
My brother visited from Sweden recently. I told him to rent a car. But NO, he had to decide to travel around the country on business by rail.
Unsurpisingly every last journey involved a delay - some of which actually were detrimental to the business he intended to do.
He said: "I had been lulled into a false sense of security by the high quality of the Swedish Railways. I will not make the same mistake again."
Be in no doubt. The percentage of journies that can be made in Britain successfully by rail instead of car are LOW!
pss1 said: Thing is no doubt they will spend all this money... and more. But the problem is that the standard of contractors and the materials they use are so sh!t they have to do the same job about ten times before the thick b@stards get it right
I am assuming you are blaming the Network Rail planners/budget for the poor quality, and not the contractors?
Do you have much experience of railway engineering?
As fair as I can see, it's not just the cost of the works themselves. It seems to be the cost of 'facilitating' the works ie the shear amount of planning, safety measures and red tape, that is driving the costs up.
Cheers, Phil
Added to which its a diseconomy.
At certain times of the day London - Cardiff is £85, so for a car of 4 would cost £340 return.
Now, is there a car that it would cost more than that in? No, even if you take something like a Bentley Azure you are still looking at walking away with a difference of over £100!
Ridiculous.
The Heathrow Express is quite pricy in comparison with Europe. In Amsterdam for example you can go from Schipol to Centraal for about £3, same journey in the UK is £13!
Matt.
At certain times of the day London - Cardiff is £85, so for a car of 4 would cost £340 return.
Now, is there a car that it would cost more than that in? No, even if you take something like a Bentley Azure you are still looking at walking away with a difference of over £100!
Ridiculous.
The Heathrow Express is quite pricy in comparison with Europe. In Amsterdam for example you can go from Schipol to Centraal for about £3, same journey in the UK is £13!
Matt.
filmidget said:
pss1 said: Thing is no doubt they will spend all this money... and more. But the problem is that the standard of contractors and the materials they use are so sh!t they have to do the same job about ten times before the thick b@stards get it right
I am assuming you are blaming the Network Rail planners/budget for the poor quality, and not the contractors?
Do you have much experience of railway engineering?
As fair as I can see, it's not just the cost of the works themselves. It seems to be the cost of 'facilitating' the works ie the shear amount of planning, safety measures and red tape, that is driving the costs up.
Cheers, Phil
Geez ROFL You just made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. I have experience of railway engineering, Railtrack, and the old GTRM (don't know if they still exist) and all i can say is the wolf-British Rail, fits snugly in sheep's clothing
filmidget said:
pss1 said: Thing is no doubt they will spend all this money... and more. But the problem is that the standard of contractors and the materials they use are so sh!t they have to do the same job about ten times before the thick b@stards get it right
I am assuming you are blaming the Network Rail planners/budget for the poor quality, and not the contractors?
Do you have much experience of railway engineering?
As fair as I can see, it's not just the cost of the works themselves. It seems to be the cost of 'facilitating' the works ie the shear amount of planning, safety measures and red tape, that is driving the costs up.
Cheers, Phil
Phil don't get me wrong the whole thing is a massive balls up but BR could do the job on the meagre resources it had, the imposition of costs associated with safety etc surely hasn't gone up several hendred percent since then.
The problem with contractors, apart from over regulation, is the lack of proper hands on management, this can allow some shit to get through (e.g. gross overmanning on London Underground maintenance teams) crap repairs (e.g. Potters Bar) and the b@stards try to blame vandals. I have only one word for that
BOLLOCKS. I know this sort of thing could be regulated out, but how about some self-restraint and less crap from the contractors (I suppose that they are only glorified builders
) As for my qualifications well none but I am a regular rail user and a tax-payer... I reckon they're all the credentials that I need to comment on something that would result in my ill-gotten gains being pi**ed up against the wall! I should of course say that all of the above is only IMHO and is not meant as an evil nasty rant... unless you're head of Network Snail.
cheers,
paul.
The state of the railways, the organisations running them and the political backing and policy on the future of rail in this country are all duff.
Going by the sums of money being quoted as needing spending i would suggest a complete dig-up, redesign and build is in order.
FFS 6 billion quid will get you a war or two in Iraq
Going by the sums of money being quoted as needing spending i would suggest a complete dig-up, redesign and build is in order.
FFS 6 billion quid will get you a war or two in Iraq
Pss1 - think my question came across wrong - I wasn't implying that if you didn't work on the railways you didn't know what you were talking about. Asked if you were railway experienced purely out of curiosity (and 'cos you seemed to know contractors well )
But Railtrack/Network Rail's safety policies ARE driving costs up hugely IMHO. To me it appears any job, no matter how simple out ‘on site’, just seems takes up more and more planning and safety resources, both in the office and on site.
EG: a three man bridge inspection taking 3 hours, would probably require another 3 or 4 safety personnel (all paid for 8 hours).
Besides, who can blame the contractors for screwing all the money they can from a job?
They are not charities. The way contracts are tendered/let (similarly with the trunk road network) everybody is just out to screw the most out of the government agency in the least time. If the job
is not being correctly checked/managed by the Client (or representative), and it’s almost always ‘cheapest wins the job’, what do they expect?
Swilly - not exactly sure how to take your commment, only coming from the possession management 'Safety Critical' side. You mean nothing has changed?
Cheers, Phil
) But Railtrack/Network Rail's safety policies ARE driving costs up hugely IMHO. To me it appears any job, no matter how simple out ‘on site’, just seems takes up more and more planning and safety resources, both in the office and on site.
EG: a three man bridge inspection taking 3 hours, would probably require another 3 or 4 safety personnel (all paid for 8 hours).
Besides, who can blame the contractors for screwing all the money they can from a job?
They are not charities. The way contracts are tendered/let (similarly with the trunk road network) everybody is just out to screw the most out of the government agency in the least time. If the job
is not being correctly checked/managed by the Client (or representative), and it’s almost always ‘cheapest wins the job’, what do they expect?
Swilly - not exactly sure how to take your commment, only coming from the possession management 'Safety Critical' side. You mean nothing has changed?
Cheers, Phil
skittle said:
Who wants trains anyway ffs
Well....I do. :contentiousstatementcoming:
Rail is really, *really* efficient at shifting very large numbers of people from known point A to known point B. This is why getting from Basingstoke to Central London of a morning is far quicker, even on poor days, than trying to drive.
To compete I would need the M3 to go right on up to the Embankment and there to be a sod-off great car park there covering a huge area.
Rail is also really good a shifting very large quantities of goods from known point A to known point B. This is why rail-tracks actually go THROUGH industrial sites (e.g. BAE/Airbus at Filton) because we once used to load goods directly from manufacture onto trains and transport them to ports and cities.
This kind of use of rail makes sense. It also gets those journies off the road system so those of us who need to use it suffer less congestion.
The stupid pillocks at Despot 2000 claim to be a Transport related organisation because they are pro-bus (a form of transport which also has its areas of efficiency and excellence) but they bloody aren't.
[rant mode on]
To be a TRANSPORT promoting organisation the agenda should be:
"Transport. Its good. Lets have more of it. More trains. More buses. MORE ROADS and MORE CARS. Because ALL TRANSPORT IS GOOD!"
[/rant mode off]
Next rant:
Justifying "All Transport Is Good" requires the statement - "for journey's appropriate to the type". For example taking a car from where I live to Central London is silly - its better to go by train even if it is more expensive.
Similarly trying to get to out to the outlying villages by any means other than car is silly. Going by bus you might as well walk...
Organisations like T2000 which are only pro public transport (and they are whatever they may say) have a standpoint which can be likened to:
"We approve of sausages. Well. Only certain sausages. The Spanish ones with little bits of fat in. Chorizos in fact. Oh - you want an English breakfast? Tough s**t."
>> Edited by Don on Monday 31st March 14:54
Justifying "All Transport Is Good" requires the statement - "for journey's appropriate to the type". For example taking a car from where I live to Central London is silly - its better to go by train even if it is more expensive.
Similarly trying to get to out to the outlying villages by any means other than car is silly. Going by bus you might as well walk...
Organisations like T2000 which are only pro public transport (and they are whatever they may say) have a standpoint which can be likened to:
"We approve of sausages. Well. Only certain sausages. The Spanish ones with little bits of fat in. Chorizos in fact. Oh - you want an English breakfast? Tough s**t."
>> Edited by Don on Monday 31st March 14:54
Quote: filmidget
But Railtrack/Network Rail's safety policies ARE driving costs up hugely IMHO. To me it appears any job, no matter how simple out ‘on site’, just seems takes up more and more planning and safety resources, both in the office and on site.
EG: a three man bridge inspection taking 3 hours, would probably require another 3 or 4 safety personnel (all paid for 8 hours).
Besides, who can blame the contractors for screwing all the money they can from a job?
Phil, got to broadly agree with you on this mate
cheers,
paul
p.s. common sense from a fellow midget owner ('72 MkIII!)
>> Edited by pss1 on Monday 31st March 15:09
>> Edited by pss1 on Monday 31st March 15:10
But Railtrack/Network Rail's safety policies ARE driving costs up hugely IMHO. To me it appears any job, no matter how simple out ‘on site’, just seems takes up more and more planning and safety resources, both in the office and on site.
EG: a three man bridge inspection taking 3 hours, would probably require another 3 or 4 safety personnel (all paid for 8 hours).
Besides, who can blame the contractors for screwing all the money they can from a job?
Phil, got to broadly agree with you on this mate
cheers,
paul
p.s. common sense from a fellow midget owner ('72 MkIII!)
>> Edited by pss1 on Monday 31st March 15:09
>> Edited by pss1 on Monday 31st March 15:10
Don said:
skittle said:
Who wants trains anyway ffs
Well....I do. :contentiousstatementcoming:
There's been a long (and heated) debate about this on ABD recently. So lets get down to the brass tacks...
Rail is really, *really* efficient at shifting very large numbers of people from known point A to known point B. This is why getting from Basingstoke to Central London of a morning is far quicker, even on poor days, than trying to drive.
This is one of the few viable (in financial and social) railway uses in the UK - dense commuter traffic. - But even this could be more efficient and flexible if the railways were converted to busways. Even the busiest commuter routes might have a train every five minutes along a track - and stands empty and unused for the remainder. Throughput, not very high.
Rail is also really good a shifting very large quantities of goods from known point A to known point B.
Only if points A and B are a long way apart, and don't then need to be shipped on by other forms of transport. In the UK there are very few uses for this. Days of shipping coal from mines directly to power stations, or ore directly to steelworks, are gone.
This can work in a continental sense where long trains can cross *very* long distances cheaply, e.g. trans-USA. In the UK, the distances are not long enough for this to pay, especially if you need to reload at both ends.
This is why rail-tracks actually go THROUGH industrial sites (e.g. BAE/Airbus at Filton) because we once used to load goods directly from manufacture onto trains and transport them to ports and cities.
Not enough volume any more.
(Cant find exact figures, but...) London underground were refurbishing rolling stock. It needed to be shipped to engineering facility - so they were shipped by road, because rail was uneconomic.
This kind of use of rail makes sense. It also gets those journies off the road system so those of us who need to use it suffer less congestion.
Most rail freight travels at night - when the roads are less congested anyway.
Overall in the UK there are about 1200 miles of economic railway, largely commuter routes. Long distance (200 miles+) has been supplanted by low cost air travel. Inter-city rail is the single requirement for high-speed rail lines, and these are the ones with the massive maintenance and safety-system costs.
Upgrading the west coast main line has been delayed again, because it was going to cost £20m per mile - so trains could travel at 140 instead of 115.
Shorter distances can be covered by bus routes - at about 1/4 of the cost, and without using a dedicated permanent way with very little throughput.
Trains are becoming as useful as canals. All very well in their heyday, but well past their sell-by date.
Edited to add - I commute to work by rail every day
>> Edited by Size Nine Elm on Monday 31st March 15:18
Quote: Size Nine Elm
Overall in the UK there are about 1200 miles of economic railway, largely commuter routes. Long distance (200 miles+) has been supplanted by low cost air travel. Inter-city rail is the single requirement for high-speed rail lines, and these are the ones with the massive maintenance and safety-system costs.
Is it true that 'low cost' air travel is hugely subsidised by Mr Brown and his big wallet?
Overall in the UK there are about 1200 miles of economic railway, largely commuter routes. Long distance (200 miles+) has been supplanted by low cost air travel. Inter-city rail is the single requirement for high-speed rail lines, and these are the ones with the massive maintenance and safety-system costs.
Is it true that 'low cost' air travel is hugely subsidised by Mr Brown and his big wallet?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff