LDECRexile
Established Member
I suggest these statements in the article are the nub of the problem:
"At current prices (as are all prices in this article), the GWML programme was to cost £1.28 billion. It is now likely to cost £3.17 billion or £4 million per single track kilometre (stk)." - Nearly three FOLD, LDECRexile
"... electrification’s benefits will not be realised unless the industry can convince the Government that it can be delivered at an acceptable cost. This is a significant challenge given that, in its report on the cancellation of electrification projects, the NAO noted that, in addition to the previously mentioned increase in GWML costs, Midland main line electrification costs had increased from £695 to £1,297 million between October 2013 and November 2014. Furthermore, electrification project delays do not inspire confidence in project delivery." - way over budget and late, LDECRexile
"Mark Carne’s response to the high GWML electrification costs is that “we’ve discovered the cost of electrification of the network is very expensive” and that “in the meantime the trains are getting better”. This reflects the Government view that electrification is just too expensive and, with bi-mode trains, no longer necessary." NR's top man agrees that that's how it is, LDECRexile
"A key factor not mentioned in these reports was that, when work started on the GWML programme, there had been negligible electrification undertaken in the previous twenty years. As a result, both Network Rail and its contractors had lost key skills and knowledge since the 1994 Heathrow electrification. We didn't know what we were doing, LDECRexile In addition, there were inevitable inefficiencies associated with the rapid mobilisation of the supply chain for large-scale electrification work. - Suppliers saw us coming, LDECRexile.
"Although much has gone wrong with GWML electrification, David considers that it is not helpful to assign blame, especially as he feels that “the whole industry got it wrong”. "the whole industry got it wrong, LDECRexile.
"The two factors that seem to make a big difference are that Scottish electrification is a relatively small rolling programme and that Transport Scotland is a strong, informed client." Ok, we bit off more than we could chew, but let's not assign blame, except to the DfT, LDECRexile
I am undiminished in my belief that electrification is desirable, but not at any old price. Government have a duty to protect the public purse.
I am unconvinced that a bit of benchmarking and a bit of bitter experience and a bit of reducing standards will reduce prices from £4M per stk to £1.2M, but I remain convincible.
I therefore have a practical proposal: contract Transport Scotland and a team from Network Rail Scotland to do the business from Oxenholme to Windermere, using Sassenach labour in the main, at all levels, including DfT. If that can come in at less than £1.4M per stk and less than 1 month late, then they can spread their wings, acting as arms' length consultants to bigger projects, like Kettering-Sheffield or Cardiff-Swansea and the Valleys.
"At current prices (as are all prices in this article), the GWML programme was to cost £1.28 billion. It is now likely to cost £3.17 billion or £4 million per single track kilometre (stk)." - Nearly three FOLD, LDECRexile
"... electrification’s benefits will not be realised unless the industry can convince the Government that it can be delivered at an acceptable cost. This is a significant challenge given that, in its report on the cancellation of electrification projects, the NAO noted that, in addition to the previously mentioned increase in GWML costs, Midland main line electrification costs had increased from £695 to £1,297 million between October 2013 and November 2014. Furthermore, electrification project delays do not inspire confidence in project delivery." - way over budget and late, LDECRexile
"Mark Carne’s response to the high GWML electrification costs is that “we’ve discovered the cost of electrification of the network is very expensive” and that “in the meantime the trains are getting better”. This reflects the Government view that electrification is just too expensive and, with bi-mode trains, no longer necessary." NR's top man agrees that that's how it is, LDECRexile
"A key factor not mentioned in these reports was that, when work started on the GWML programme, there had been negligible electrification undertaken in the previous twenty years. As a result, both Network Rail and its contractors had lost key skills and knowledge since the 1994 Heathrow electrification. We didn't know what we were doing, LDECRexile In addition, there were inevitable inefficiencies associated with the rapid mobilisation of the supply chain for large-scale electrification work. - Suppliers saw us coming, LDECRexile.
"Although much has gone wrong with GWML electrification, David considers that it is not helpful to assign blame, especially as he feels that “the whole industry got it wrong”. "the whole industry got it wrong, LDECRexile.
"The two factors that seem to make a big difference are that Scottish electrification is a relatively small rolling programme and that Transport Scotland is a strong, informed client." Ok, we bit off more than we could chew, but let's not assign blame, except to the DfT, LDECRexile
I am undiminished in my belief that electrification is desirable, but not at any old price. Government have a duty to protect the public purse.
I am unconvinced that a bit of benchmarking and a bit of bitter experience and a bit of reducing standards will reduce prices from £4M per stk to £1.2M, but I remain convincible.
I therefore have a practical proposal: contract Transport Scotland and a team from Network Rail Scotland to do the business from Oxenholme to Windermere, using Sassenach labour in the main, at all levels, including DfT. If that can come in at less than £1.4M per stk and less than 1 month late, then they can spread their wings, acting as arms' length consultants to bigger projects, like Kettering-Sheffield or Cardiff-Swansea and the Valleys.
