To begin with, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin’s statement on Network Rail in front of Parliament this morning contained no surprises – at least not to those familiar with the works delays and escalating project costs currently plaguing the organisation. Nor was it too much of a surprise when he confirmed that current chairman Richard Parry-Jones would be leaving. What was surprising, however, was when McLoughlin casually named his successor – London’s very own long-serving Transport Commissioner, Sir Peter Hendy, who will take up post on 16th July. In that one moment the entire political landscape of London’s current transport governance changed.
Organisational failure on a grand scale
That Network Rail is a company in desperate need of new direction from the top has been clear for sometime. Readers of the latest edition of Modern Railways (July 2015) will be aware that Network Rail’s plans are basically falling apart. New projects are well behind schedule and costs appear to be way too high. Indeed although it is not said, the current works at London Bridge seem to be the high point of Network Rail’s work in progress being, as far as we are aware, both on time and on budget – but even here work has been plagued with very public problems.
It was an Office of Rail and Road report expressing “serious concerns” over the organisation which prompted a piece by Roger Ford in the aforementioned Modern Railways. What was more telling though was that the editorial spelt out just what the impact was going to be. If electrification on the Great Western were late then the very expensive new IEP trains could be sitting unused or underused. Politically, if such a thing were to happen, it would be very embarrassing indeed.
A few decades ago the state our railways nationally would not have been a major political concern. Now it most definitely is – and that is before one talks about HS2. It is clear that the government has had enough and has decided that something major has to change.
Enter Sir Peter
One can understand what might have been going through the Secretary of State’s mind. It is time for a new chairman of Network Rail. Someone familiar enough with railways and their governance to understand the issues, but distant enough not to be tainted with the current problems. This leaves a relatively small field – indeed one centred almost entirely on London.
Moreover one needs someone politically astute, something that in recent years Network Rail has appeared to be severely lacking. This has been particularly noticeable in London, thanks to occasions when both Network Rail and TfL have appeared before the Assembly. It is not uncommon in those situations for Network Rail’s representatives to seem more flustered and unprepared than their TfL colleagues – not always a fair reflection on what they actually had to say.
There are few individuals who can bring all of those elements to the table. Sir Peter Hendy is clearly one of them and, to the Government, it seems the man who should be appointed to do the job.
An enormous legacy
Sir Peter’s ability to take on the role is evidenced by the legacy he leaves behind at TfL. It is nine and a half years since Sir Peter took over as Transport Commissioner, having served as MD of Surface Transport since 2001. In that time he has steered TfL through what could have been an enormously rocky set of financial and political shoals, as both first London’s Mayoralty and then the British Government switched from left to right. Both transitions could have proven disastrous for TfL, coming at times when the organisation was already under pressure to deliver big projects (such as Crossrail) as well as save money.
Sir Peter’s tendency to be direct in the face of comment and criticism has no doubt caused TfL’s press office more than a few sleepless nights, but it has also earned him a reputation (and public profile) that has been an overall net-positive for TfL. It has also hidden an astute political compass most evidenced, perhaps, in his ability to work with Boris Johnson. The root of the New Bus for London project (NBfL) may have lain with the Mayor, but it was the Commissioner who ultimately carried it through and, whether one considers that a good or bad thing in the long run for London’s buses, it is hard now to avoid the suspicion that at least in part that commitment to NBfL helped ensure that the Mayor remained a vocal proponent of TfL’s other projects, such as Crossrail, when the threat of the incoming Coalition government’s spending review loomed back in 2010.
An Empty Throne
Whilst Sir Peter’s appointment will almost certainly be good news for Network Rail, it does raise a serious question for London – what next for TfL?
Fortunately for London, in recent years Sir Peter has tended to exhibit a more hands-off approach. This means his chief officers should be quite capable of running day-to-day things. Indeed it is Mike Brown, Managing Director (MD) of Rail, who the Mayor has asked to take on the post of Transport Commissioner in the short term until a full recruitment process can be put in place.
That full recruitment process, however, should by no means be assumed to be a formality. Brown’s temporary appointment to the role is a strong indicator of both his own credentials and desire for the post, but he is not the only individual who would likely wish to hold it for the long term.
Vernon Everitt, TfL’s current MD of Customer Experience, Marketing and Communications would perhaps be LR Tower’s suggestion of the dark horse candidate from within TfL itself, but there are plenty of outside contenders for the role as well – most notably the current Deputy Mayor for Transport Isabel Dedring. Sir Peter’s early departure has perhaps ensured that the vacancy comes too soon for Crossrail’s own potential candidates, in the likes of Terry Morgan or Andrew Wolstenholme, to consider crossing the organisational floor, but their ability to do the role effectively would be hard to doubt.
Indeed this is perhaps the one positive for London, and TfL, is that there is a wealth of candidates available who have the potential skills to do the job. Nonetheless, Sir Peter is arguably the most influential and successful transport lead that London has had since Lord Ashfield himself, and succeeding him will be no mean task. How the Mayor and TfL chose to do so will also tell us a great deal about the challenges they believe the organisation will face in the next five years.
In Sir Peter, a more-than-thirty-year busman who still owns and drives a Routemaster, it had a technocrat as its effective head – someone as versed in the reality of transport (and transport of all modes – we have looked at his subtle influence on cycling in London elsewhere). Putting someone such as Mike Brown into the top job permanently would suggest a belief that this remains the best approach for London. Appointing Dedring or Everett, meanwhile, would suggest that the challenges of politics, rather than implementation, are those they believe will be most pressing in the years to come.
All this we will no doubt look at in more detail in the coming weeks. For now, it seems best to acknowledge that London’s loss is almost certainly Britain’s wider gain. And that whilst the city can take confidence in the fact that the list of candidates who can replace him is a strong one…
…the Game of Zones has most definitely begun.
Typo at the start of the article – “being” should be “begin”. [Thanks, corrected. LBM]
On the wider point I wonder whether Sir Peter’s remarks about the London Bridge issues when they were at their height is what registered with the DfT and SoS? A bit of “let’s call his bluff and see if he can do better”.
One aspect in the article that needs consideration is whether the Mayor can legitimately recruit a permanent successor given the Mayoral Election next year and the fact that Boris will be leaving. It would be unfair on a new permanent appointee to possibly face eviction from the post come May 2016. The Commissioner is a political appointment and I have a sneaking suspicion that any new Mayor may be tempted to go for a non transport professional. I think Lord Adonis is being lined up by some on the Labour side as a potential commissioner. I suspect a Tory Mayor will want or be pushed to appoint a business person who’ll apply ruthless business logic to strip out cost. There will certainly be a lobby on the Right to do this.
Personally I think you need someone who understands transport in all its aspects in that role. That shows through from Sir Peter’s time at TfL where there have been / are initiatives for all aspects of TfL’s wide sphere of operation / influence. Just employing business people with no clue about the service being provided doesn’t work – just look at Network Rail who are almost completely devoid of railway expertise at Board level!
Interesting times ahead and a challenge for Mike Brown to lobby for a good settlement in the upcoming Spending Review which starts next month and concludes in the Autumn.
I vote for Mike Brown!
(Not that anyone in power would listen)
However …
WW
I suspect a Tory Mayor will want or be pushed to appoint a business person who’ll apply ruthless business logic to strip out cost. There will certainly be a lobby on the Right to do this.
Really?
If Zac Goldsmith becomes candidate then Mayor ( a distinct possibility) then I suspect that your suggestion will, fortunately, not happen.
[Political comments and conjecture snipped. LBM]
Good luck & more power to the elbow of Sir Peter H, though …..
Routemaster, not Route Master.
[Yes that stood out a mile to me also. Now corrected. PoP]
Shades of the 1950s with a Tory government giving the railways lots of money, and costs getting out of control.
Given TfLs desire to take over more of the suburban network, I can’t help wondering if the political winds will become more favorable too.
@ Anon – I keep seeing comments about Sir Peter’s move to NR being a positive sign in respect of rail devolution. Sorry but I just don’t see it. Network Rail have no say about the policy of who controls the specification of what service. That’s a DfT matter and whoever might be requesting devolution. NR are supposed to be agnostic in terms of who runs on their metals provide the operators meet the required standards and competence. After all ORR allocate paths not NR.
I can’t see any regional preference being displayed by the NR Chairman – that’s just inviting criticism from the ranks of politicians and other stakeholders who will all want to be first in the queue for whatever projects NR feels it can deliver effectively. Any sign of a “London preference” will go down like a lead balloon with far too many people. I think Sir Peter is far too politically astute to make that sort of error in a new national job.
@John Bull
Thank you for a good commentary.
I propose to set out some subtle successor issues beyond Sir Peter Hendy:
* what does TfL and any Mayor need most from the appointed successor (and I’m sure Mike Brown will do a strong job in the interim) – greatest experience with political prioritisation choices, and/or with medium and longer term planning across the total transport piste, and please bear in mind that these qualities are not mutually exclusive?
* note that TfL led by Peter Hendy also had to show steadiness of hand and oversee the organisation on matters such as clear prioritisation when awful things happened like 7/7, and good things like the Olympics, all basically down to clear judgments of timescales and logistics – hard when all stakeholders, media, politicians want everything sorted at once.
* what skill sets are immediately to hand to lobby for a good settlement for London (and towards Crossrail 2, London 2050 etc), leading to the autumn Comprehensive Spending Review which will largely set TfL’s financing for the next 3-5 years? – and where a strong financial position by 2019-20 is critical for London 2050 infrastructure funding. See commentary in the London 2050 Part 1 article, in the concluding text: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/london-2050-part-1-trillion-pound-time-warp/ :-
“The transport expenditure pressures don’t hit hard until 2021-26, when they double compared to 2011-15 and 2016-20. As we shall see, that period includes Crossrail 2 and the New Tube for London projects, which are already in the forward programme though nowhere near full programme authorisation yet…
The timing for that transport investment uplift is unfortunate, as London’s total infrastructure spend is then also looking at 100% uplift compared to 2011-15, while in 2021-26 the proportion of transport spending rises to over 40% of the total cake, compared to a more typical one-third. Consequently the transport spend profile is particularly vulnerable in the political and funding environments of the late 2010s and early 2020s.”
* another possible job description – how can the narrowing gap between population and jobs planning impacting on transport supply, and transport capacity and quality impacting on London’s planning options, best be headed up by a Commissioner (assuming the post of Commissioner remains) who is versed in both dimensions?
* The hardest? Who is capable of running a £5bn revenue turnover organisation, and more billions of investment, and a large yet credible organisation which maintains political support, and has clear plans to support London’s future. Arguably this is Sir Peter’s greatest legacy.
He’s got some style, has Hendy – only a short time after publicly calling National Rail services “shit”, he’s landed the Network Rail job! I wonder if it enhanced his application?
Great article at such short notice. One small point, in para 3 ORR is Office of Rail and Road; let’s keep rail to the forefront even in times of adversity!
[Probably partly my fault. Now corrected. PoP]
Disappointed Kitten……don’t confuse Network Rail with National Rail. Hendy was criticising DfT specified and TOC operated services and not Network Rail directly. Indeed he was effectively criticising those who have just appointed him!
Those who want a “businessman” rather than Mike Brown forget that anyone who delivers success in a politicised high profile public sector role is a consummate businessman – and don’t forget his time at Heathrow.
As for Lord Adonis, would he want to serve under a Conservative Mayor?
It’s worth remembering that at the beginning Peter was known as Bendy Hendy following the introduction of Artic buses by Ken Livingstone and so his conversion to NB4L shows how apt this nick name was !
While WW says his move to Network Rail carries no role in rail devolution his experience re trying to expand the Overground beyond London borders to natural rail endings and not just a political line on a map may come in handy if logical extenstions to Overground to say Hertford East/ North are to come about .
It’s worth remembering NR is now a government body and unless we are to re-privatise NR then it needs to become more like TFL and hopefully less centrally controlled like BR was .
As for a successor then either we seek cross party agreement ahead of next years Mayoral Election ( remember how Tim O’Toole left shortly after Boris became Mayor.) or leave Mike Briwn in place until after the election .
One name that comes to mind is Chris Green who created Network Southeast and would thus bring knowledge of London railways and how to create Crossrail 2 and even other joined up projects . If he is not to run TFL then a place on NR board for the BR chairman BR was denied could benefit national network.
While some of today’s news sounds dire the reality is the GWR electrification is going ahead . While much can be done to MML ahead of electrification given that HSTs have only recently started running at 125 mph on sections of the route and so as long as upgrade of MML continues then wires can follow.
While TPE could be a case of not repeating error of WCML upgrade where billîons were spent and yet without Pendolino trains WCML is still a 100 mph railway . The HS3 plans for TPE could prevent a repeat of this .
What’s really needed is a rolling electrification plan and perhaps that may happen or could we see a repeat of failure of BR Modernisation Plan where schemes were cut back and dropped ?
A lot of interesting issues follow.
Will this affect negotiations for the Night Tube?
Interesting that the weakest links for Crossrail are the western end and the interface with Network Rail signalling. Whilst I expect Sir Peter to be even handed and not favour one part of the country over another, his in-depth knowledge of Crossrail and personal commitment may mean that he has a greater understanding than another potential chairman might have. Given his commitment to Crossrail, I imagine he would not slack in this just because he has a new employer. Indeed the project has got to a stage where he could probably achieve more to ensure the success of Crossrail as Network Rail Chairman than he could as Commissioner of Transport for the Metropolis.
Sir Peter has in the past spoken with some passion about the need to improve services in the north of England – if only to kill the myth that London is taking investment away from the north. One would imagine that any Transport for Greater Manchester type organisation will get a lot of support from Network Rail.
Don’t forget Sir Peter lives in Bath so expect him to be very au fait with all that happens on the Great Western Main Line.
Will Sir Peter attempt to poach any high-flyers at TfL to the detriment of London? Note that he already has Phil Hufton (ex LU chief Operating Officer). I do hope Phil did not leave LU to get away from Sir Peter!
Possibly more interesting than who will permanently get the job as commissioner is the question: If Mike Brown becomes the commissioner, who will take over his role and be in charge of the tubes? Howard Smith is currently at Crossrail and must be in the running if such an opening occurred and he wanted it. Also Howard Collins who is currently chief executive at Transport for New South Wales might be tempted back.
Under normal circumstances the Chief Operating Officer at LU would be expected to be a prime candidate for Mike Brown’s job. However the present incumbent, Steve Griffiths, has only just come from over from Virgin Atlantic so probably does not have enough relevant experience to be considered.
Strange how this sits bearing in mind Sir Peter presided over the SSR re-signalling cock-up. Or may it is because he could see the problems ahead and decided to pull the plug, however awkward and embarrassing that might be at the time, that actually impressed the Secretary of State for Transport. And don’t forget Sir Peter is used to dealing with the Secretary of State.
Possibly the most amazing thing of all is that Sir Peter, a man with notable left-wing views in the past, has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport of a Conservative government. This is probably a strong indication of both his competence and a pragmatic government. So ex-miner appoints ex-bus driver.
@ Melvyn – I think your imagination is running away with itself. Chris Green has retired and I can’t imagine he’s got any desire to run TfL. People seem to forget that TfL exists to do the Mayor’s bidding so it’s no surprise you see policy swings. Being able to “adapt” to a new political master is an essential skill for the Commissioner (either of Transport or of the Met Police). The GWML electrification project has to reach a conclusion given the money already spent, the political promises made and to avoid a fleet of very expensive IEPs sitting in sidings racking up charges but earning zero money. It is also worth considering that delaying the MML electrification throws up some issues about what to do with the IC125s on that line as I understand they weren’t proposed for disabled compliance works. I also wish we could stop speculating about Overground running to Hertford East – not going to happen anytime soon. The scope of the West Anglia concession is set and I can’t see government adjusting the Anglia franchise geograhpic scope either. Things are settled until such time as the line is four tracked (must now be decades away) and / or Crossrail 2 arrives. STAR is a side show to all of that and there must now be doubts about its delivery by 2019 if NR is having to refocus and reassess. Note also that the residents at Ferry Lane Estate are objecting to the loss of loads of trees which are in the way of extra tracks south of Tottenham Hale.
@ PoP – I can’t see Howard Collins returning from Oz. I agree with your basic questions about the succession process and who will rise up the organisation to fill whatever gaps appear. I don’t know the new faces in LU so can’t comment on their ambition / competence. I’d be slightly surprised if Howard Smith moved from Crossrail as his experience will be invaluable in keeping Crossrail “steady” as it migrates from project to operation. A “safe pair of hands” is really important there.
@ 100 and thirty – My remark about Lord Adonis was framed solely in the context of Labour winning the Mayoralty in 2016 and even then possibly only if one individual was to win. I don’t see him being a choice of a Tory Mayor (of whatever position on the right spectrum). I know Mike Brown is very capable and I wasn’t saying he wasn’t a businessman. I was more alluding to the possible choice of a non transport “slash and burn” type person to give rid of the perceived “flab” in TfL and to curb what some politicians view as “excesses”. Remember that we had this approach with Tim Parker who later quit as Deputy Mayor for Transport back in August 2008. I can certainly see Stephen Greenhalgh wanting TfL cut back severely in order to free up monies to fund his proposed fare cuts. I also suspect that the total scope of TfL’s activities would be cut back under that regime as there’ll be no sentiment about a lot of stuff that’s currently done.
An article lauding an individual is delightful.
Given the political importance of HS2 it is perhaps surprising Hendry wasn’t parachuted into heading up HS2 Ltd. One wonders whether we might read into that choice, a degree at least of political uncertainty that HS2 will proceed?
@Theban…..Given the Conservatives have a tiny majority (with plenty of backbenchers opposed to the scheme), and that Labour were only lukewarm at best about the whole scheme and could easily change their mind once they have a new leader, I would strongly suggest that HS2 is in mortal danger.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Personally, I’ve always felt ambivalent about the whole scheme (mainly because I feel that amount of money could be spent reopening lines that are now very much needed and invest in electrification/other infrastructure upgrades across the country), but can understand why it is necessary purely for future capacity needs. So overall, my view about whether or not it should be built is one big ‘meh’.
Let’s not get into a debate here about whether or not HS2 is a good thing.
Theban,
I think the difference between Network Rail and HS2 is that it is perceived that the people at HS2 are basically competent for the specified task in hand. So no point in rocking the boat. On the other hand, in the case of Network Rail, desperate times call for desperate measures. Also, it is one thing to project manage a big project on a greenfield site. It requires a different skill to project manage and co-ordinate various tasks on a working railway.
HS2, at the top, is, I think, full of railway people and engineers despite not currently having a railway. Have a look at the composition of Network Rail’s board (and bear in mind Chris Gibb is a recent appointment) and executive committee and the skill sets those people bring along and there might be clue as to why they find it difficult to run a railway.
I am sure if WS Gilbert were alive today he would be writing the lyrics to a light opera about a railway run by a group of people who had no knowledge of railways (much as he wrote about a first Lord of the Admiralty who never went to sea).
@ PoP Yes, There are some encouraging signs that senior appointments given as purely political rewards to those without sufficient industry knowledge, might be more limited in future.
W.S. Gilbert’s days of becoming Lord High Admiral due to successfully “sailing a desk” could be over. My real hope is that this might permeate down to County Council level, where, in some cases, appointments, based only on being a loyal nodding donkey for 20 years, are sometimes risible with disastrous consequences.
@WW – :-). The sad thing is that the privatisation process and its consequences stripped out a whole generation of railway managers, stopped the general management recruitment pipeline, and broke permanently any orderly succession planning. Given that the number of senior staff who were both excellent operators and politically astute – a sine qua non for the Commissioner job – was always very tiny, I can’t see that forming any sort of pool for filling that post.
As you imply,nearly all the possible candidates have long retired -the Retired Railway Officers’ Society has never been more vigorous – and even the very youngest such as Richard Brown and Andy Cooper must nowbe contemplating “beekeeping in Sussex”. (Brown, although I disagree with much of what he says, would surely have been the CEO of BR had it survived, but as the SoS hitman, he isn’t available, anyway).
@PoP
I think you are making an inaccurate distinction between HS2 and NR. The disarray in the plans and escalating costs for the Euston upgrade are at least as bad, and possibly worse, than for any project led by NR. That must be visible to the Government.
The key differences between NR and HS2 is that while capital expenditure in NR can be capped:
1. Once HS2 gets the go ahead then it is like the Great Western electrification on steroids – it has to be completed to time and on budget or risk a political fiasco of massive proportions
2. HS2 can at this point be axed; whatever happens to capital projects within NT the business as usual must continue
I know you disagree but I do read the Hendry appointment as signalling that HS2 is in “mortal danger” as Anonymously put it.
@ Theban
Although this is not a Crossrail thread, and the mods will ensure it doesn’t become one, I can report to you here that my contacts “in the Westminster area” have noticed “less jumping about with enthusiasm” about this particular project in certain circles, particularly the one responsible for bean counting.
@Castlebar “W.S. Gilbert’s days of becoming Lord High Admiral due to successfully “sailing a desk” could be over”
The reference to the “Ruler of the Queens Navee” in HMS Pinafore is usually suggested to have been a dig at WH Smith, Lord High Admiral at the time (1877) but better known for selling newspapers. However, he was by no means the first holder of the post to have had little naval experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Smith_(1825%E2%80%931891)#/media/File:Our_New_First_Lord_at_Sea.png
@Castlebar/Theban – of course, the political commitment to HS2 is too great and too recent (ie post-election) for the project to be abandoned as such, but who would be surprised if the scope wasn’t scaled back and retimed – perhaps just the easy bits at first….
@timbeau – in fact, an easy and slightly irrelevant jibe on Gilbert’s part – the separation of titular posts from functional ones is a process that has been going on in England since Saxon times (as elsewhere).
If of any interest, Sir Peter currently (9:05am) doing a phone in on LBC. Should be available later at the LBC web-site.
With HS2, Euston is very much the exception to the rule in that it involves building a new railway while keeping the existing one open (more an NR speciality) whereas virtually all of the rest of HS2 can be run more like a conventional construction only project (mostly greenfield) where scope, specification and cost can be controlled far more easily.
@ Theban – please note it is “Hendy” not “Hendry”.
@ Graham H – the same issue with management progression happened in the bus industry when NBC was pulled apart. In more recent years Stagecoach, in particular, have spent a lot of time and effort growing their management talent across their group. I’m less certain about what happens in the other groups but I assume they do something similar but perhaps make less noise about it. Interesting how the consultants and experts who advocate privatisation etc always seem to forget the dislocation to things like management and staff development and effective progression in the industry.
@ PoP – I hadn’t looked at the NR Board or Exec Cttee members until you posted the links. It’s worse than I thought it was having read articles about NR – seems to be full of people who know something about petroleum, pipelines and airports. Explains why so many stations are being turned into shopping centres!
Always funny how people read the tealeaves to see what they want to see. I just can’t see how sacking the head of one organisation means that a completely separate organisation is in dire trouble. You could equally argue that the balance of the argument between upgrading existing main lines vs building new ones has been shifted in the direction of new ones by the mess Network Rail has made of the Great Western upgrade. Or maybe there is no particular relationship at all. It is no secret that the Treasury hates HS2 and always has done, but the Treasury doesn’t always get its way.
I think the more interesting implication of the appointment of Peter Hendy to Network Rail is that he is the most successful (or is that only successful) high profile head of a nationalised industry.
To me this suggests that the government isn’t immediately planning to break it up and sell it off, despite rumblings from the Tory right and the Treasury. If you want to show that a government-owned rail network can work, the best choice of leader is someone who already runs one. Maybe we’ll start seeing posters extolling Network Rail for reinvesting all its income etc etc.
Of course the Royal Navy now has more Admirals than warships (something that was considered wildly satirical when C Northcote Parkinson predicted it in the 1950s), so most Admirals will be desk-bound most of the time.
Melvyn & others
Please re-refer to the short piece in July’s Modern Railways, about the electrification mast-fitting machines finally working as intended ( & possibly better) this will cut costs.
If more of the same can be delivered, we may, hopefully get what the railways & the country need.
Just a little bit later.
The fundamental fault is that of “government” in the wider sense.
For decades, the railways were starved of money ( – see also the repeated pieces about a shortage of signal engineers – a particularly bitter point to me ) then suddenly a fire-hose of cash is pointed at them – & not enough trained experienced engineering people to do the jobs.
Now, it all needs sorting out.
Ian J
“Always funny how people read the tea leaves to see what they want to see”
Whistling in the dark by the usual suspects. They’ve been predicting HS2’s demise for years and can’t quit the habit.
@ Ian J
Yes, but the new factor is Scotland. A land that has decided that it will derive no benefit from HS2 and will therefore obstruct more than already budgeted money being spent on it, (Already a tough call).
My point was that purely political appointments are now, thanks to the internet, being questioned more and more often. Appointments to top seats on gravy train quangos (one particular National Park now comes to mind) can no longer go through “on the nod”, even in Tory and Labour bastions of support. This is why “transport” is going to get interesting. No longer “old school chum” appointments made in the Lodge or golf/rugby club. We will have more appointees with EXPERIENCE as opposed to knowledge of a subject. The benefits to the transport industry COULD be massive. But Scotland is now the elephant in the room. Never a good idea to bribe people before an election and expect them to have forgotten the promises a year later, especially Scots and especially when devolution is threatened as a consequence of reneging. Promises/Pledges/Definite promises made to the residents of Dawlish and south Devon can be torn up, simples, but big spend on projects that might divert presumed money away from Scotland now matter more than ever before.
This could be a fantastic opportunity, but only time will tell, and I really do hope there is no subsequent reversion to ‘old ways’, because I don’t think the pubic will stand for it.
Any further mention or questioning of the validity of HS2 will be removed for being off topic. This is London Reconnections, not Britain Reconnections.
In a slightly different flavour of offside, whilst HS2 at Euston is indeed a London Transport topic, it is not related to Sir Peter’s appointment to Network Rail.
Excellent headline
@LBM….can someone then please blog about the possible impact a scrapping of HS2 (see my earlier comment about why this is now a strong possibility……it’s all about the parliamentary numbers, people!) will have on all of the other London transport projects people have discussed here over the years (Old Oak Common, Crossrail 2 etc.)?
[Probably not, because it would be very hard to discuss such consequences without straying into the realms of why and whether HS2 might or might not be scrapped. An aside in a comment made for another reason might be OK, as long as it was just an aside. Malcolm (who thinks LBM is probably sleeping right now)]
A nice cartoon about Sir Peter’s impending arrival at Network Rail. 🙂
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIa7qq8XAAAtWqI.jpg
(from Twitter)
As people are throwing hats in to the ring I’m throwing that of Andy Byford currently running the Toronto Transit Commission.
He has worked for London Underground as a station foreman (so very hands on) as well as General Manager .
Moved to South East Trains / Southern then to Australia hence to Toronto.
If he can work with Toronto’s immediate past Mayor and the fractious council then he can basically work with anyone!
As to Isabel Dedring – yes she has worked for TFL but not in any sort of operational role. Would she be able to speak with the same confidence about such issues that Sir Peter does?
@ Chris C – oh that’s where Mr Byford ended up. He’s done well for himself. Nice chap when I last worked with him.
Don’t discount Ms Dedring’s knowledge – she certainly used to attend regular management update sessions at LU and was known for being very challenging and putting experienced managers and engineers on the spot as to issues / lack of progress etc. You may have a point about whether she’s directly managed a large operational workforce but she’s no one’s fool. I’ve seen her talk about various aspects of TfL’s portfolio and she’s always seemed very “on the ball” and lucid. No sense of her “winging it” at all. I’d expect her to easily survive the Mayoral change in May 2016 unless she has some personal ambition to do something new.
Sir Peter scored a lot of points with me when he bothered to show up to a local meeting about the Archway Gyratory. He seemed to have genuine passion for his job and organisation. In my experience too much bad management is down to passionless people who don’t actually care for what they are managing, only that they are the top dog and everyone else knows it.
I really hope that he knocks some shape into Network Rail, and that TfL does not fall apart in his absence.
@WW. That cartoon had me hooting out loud with laughter. I commend it to all LR readers. And it’s right on topic !
@Chris C, WW
Andy Byford has been a great breath of fresh air here in Toronto, very capable and able to better present his case for better transit here than his predecessors. So we really hope he stays. Perhaps LU could create a management school + operational experience program to pump out similar well-regarded transport leaders…
Re Fandroid,
Unfortunately the cartoonist hasn’t realised that Sir Peter would probably be the one driving the bus not the top deck passenger 😉
My guess is that the cartoonist knows all about Sir Peter’s bus driving prowess – they are pretty hot on research, and it is not exactly a secret – but was concerned that readers would not. The joke would have been blunted. Yes a great cartoon, whatever.
If age is relevant, I note that Sir Peter was three years ahead of me at school. This means he already qualifies for a 60 plus Lobstercard, is less than a year away from his Freedom Pass and reaches state retirement pension age in 2018. In this youth obsessed day and age I can’t see him being allowed to stay in post for long.
[This comment comes close to being removed for bringing down the tone of the discussion. Those commenting on Sir Peter’s suitability for the post should try to stick to factors more relevant than age. Malcolm]
Chris C, Walthamstow Writer,
Despite being American, Isabel can have a very British sense of self put-down when it comes to detailed railway knowledge. I bet if you gave her a rail map and asked her to point out Coppermill Junction she could do it. She certainly knows of it. One gets the impression that she regards this as subsidiary to focusing on the what passengers and London want and need.
Malcolm, you have got the wrong end of the stick. I happen to believe that Sir Peter is an excellent, experienced, informed and competent candidate. The point I was trying to make is that unfounded ageism is rife in the UK. There is a tendency to elbow out or not take on experienced senior personnel and to prefer younger, although less able, people. This tends to severely limit the pool of those suitable for the most senior positions.
[You are right about the stick. I misunderstood your comment. Apologies. Malcolm]
“Yes, but the new factor is Scotland. A land that has decided that it will derive no benefit from HS2 and will therefore obstruct more than already budgeted money being spent on it”
This is getting off topic, but the Scottish Government supports HS2. It would just like it to continue to Scotland. This was most recently discussed in the Scottish Parliament on 26 May 2015. The official report is at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=9968 Look under ‘Topical Question Time’.
Even if HS2 never gets beyond Manchester and Leeds, it will still reduce Anglo-Scottish journey times.
More to the point, Network Rail’s rolling programme of railway electrification in Scotland appears to be going well, so why have they got into such a mess in England and Wales?
[This comment is just about acceptable as a “right of reply” and not actually discussing the merits of HS2. Further comments on HS2 have to have some direct London relevance, preferably related to the departure of the current TfL boss – and not just the arrival of the new Network Rail chairman. PoP]
I’ve just finished reading On the Wrong Line: How Ideology and Incompetence Wrecked Britain’s Railways eBook: Christian Wolmar: [Kindle Store] and I think that I have a clearer understanding about the how-we-got-here for the railway network outside London**, and the urgency.
It’s a great shame for London that we will be loosing the Knight who arranged the Night tube, but it might be better for the country as a whole some promote competence.
The gulf between the trains we have in London where people’s exceptions are high but the density means almost any investment will pay off and what can be realistically done in the shires (and cities outside those will all-figure-dialling) is not an easy problem to solve.
And there are friends here on L.R. who think that has a poor train service.
Anyway, it’s always tough to loose a combatant bureaucrat because he’s too good.
** – this recent show covered the issues well BBC Two – Nick and Margaret: The Trouble with Our Trains
I don’t think transport experience is as important as some claim. Admittedly if management talent is only mediocre then it relies upon experience. True top talent though can step into anything, take two of three months to settle and then perform as well or better than more mediocre talent with experience but which also has narrower horizons.
The only trouble is, top talent is rare but by all that is spoken of him, Peter Hendy meets that accolade.
The problem is Theban that whoever gets the role will be expected to be on top of things from Day 1.
The media and politicians and even the public won’t be going “oh well s/he’s only new” when either something goes wrong or is at the end of a table at a GLA hearing and failing to adequately answer questions.
Talking of hearings is the Commissioner role that needs a GLA confirmation or is it a pure TFL Board (Mayoral) appointment?
POP – I bow to your better knowledge of Ms Dedrings attributes. I was simply going by the wiki page about her.
I see she is deputy chair of the TFL board. Surely it would be against various corporate governance rules / guidelines for her to take up the Commissioners role – assuming that she wants it of course!
Given the heatwave forecast for next week with temperatures in the 30s C / 90s F then that cartoon of Sir Peter on a Borismaster will certainly have him ” hot on the job” or more likely having to rescued from the basic design fault of these buses when hot weather strikes and cooling system isn’t working …with no windows that open !
I reckon to much is being read into this news given the electrification pause is just that and on MML much work can be done on upgrading the route and preparing for wires and as Greg Tingley mentioned above a report in July Modern Railways gives positive news on the HOPS Factory train being used to electrify the GWR and therefore another HOPS train could be ordered for MML and justified as being useful for a rolling programme which is what is really needed or for use if any new sections of railway are built ( e.g TPE upgrade with new sections of route.)
@ Nameless – I rather suspect Sir Peter has a TfL Staff Pass and a very nice shiny pass entitling him to First Class National Rail travel for life. If he could confirm he is resident in a London borough then yes he could add a 60+ Pass if he wanted to but it might be considered a tad excessive in view of other benefits. As Boris is effectively his boss I wonder if he has to hand in his building permit, PPE [1] and Staff Pass to Boris when he leaves? 😉 (asked in jest before anyone takes me seriously!!). You’re also supposed to have a “leaving interview” with your boss. Might be quite a short affair for Sir Peter. 🙂
[1] Personal protective equipment.
@ Theban – I take your point about true management talent but I tend to make a bit of an exception with a railway. That may just be my bias showing through but they are a particularly complex and involved thing to run. The Commissioner’s job is much wider than that and I’ve always been impressed at the sheer scale of Sir Peter’s knowledge when he’s been questioned. He also that rare knack of being able to explain complex things in a way mere mortals (and politicians) can understand. He’s also not been afraid to be clear about where the constraints are so there aren’t open ended promises being made even if that upsets or annoys those receiving the message.
@ Fandroid – yes the cartoon certainly made me chuckle. I wonder if he’ll get a framed copy. A while back I attended an exhibition of Martin Rowson’s cartoons with an emphasis on the London Mayoralty. There was a rather nice one featuring Sir Peter and I took a snap of it. Seems quite fitting really.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/14459624518/
I obtained Mr Rowson’s permission before posting to Flickr so there’s no breach of copyright.
@ Melvyn – the media seem to have unilaterally decided that “pause” actually means “shelve” so they’re going to get a fright if the government decides, after Sir Peter’s review, that work can proceed albeit to a different timescale. I may well be missing something important but I didn’t get a sense that the works had been cancelled by the SoS. When he said “paused” that’s what I thought he meant. They may end up being cancelled if the costs have spun out of control and there’s no business case anymore but we’re not there yet.
It’s been a tad pathetic to see supposedly knowledgeable journalists declaring shock and wonder about whether the fact that some of NR’s projects were going sideways was known about months ago. If any one of them had bothered to pick up a decent quality rail magazine in the last 6-9 months they’d have seen all the info they needed.
Chris C,
The role taken up by Ms Dedring is a complex one. She seems to attract suffixes to her name in reports. These try and explain her position. If I recall correctly, she is technically a TfL employee on secondment to the Mayor who has appointed her a deputy mayor (or the deputy mayor or something). I have no idea who she answers to but if you hear her speak she is very impressive. If the audience throws questions at her she answers them with the ability of Peter Hendy – except that Peter Hendy speaks slowly and pauses for breath. Breathing clearly gets in the way of Ms Dedring’s desire to communicate and she appears to somehow dispense with this biological necessity.
Among possible expat contenders for the Commissioner role, could I propose Ian Dobbs? Another ex-BR manager with a strong track record including time at SWT, SRA and as deputy to McNulty.
He is stepping down this month as Chairman of Public Transport Victoria, having effectively created the organisation for one state government and then run it for another as both CEO and then Chairman. Anyone who can navigate through Aus politics needs to be astute, although I’m not sure even the TfL job would tempt him back from Melbourne.
@ PoP – that last couple of sentences in your most recent posting resulted in loud chortling noises. 🙂
Ms Dedring is a TfL employee seconded to the GLA to be Deputy Mayor for Transport. This is what is recorded in the TfL Annual Report and Accounts. She earns just shy of £132k (source – London.gov.uk). Prior to being Deputy Mayor for Transport she covered Environment issues at City Hall having been seconded across from the TfL Policy Unit. When she moved to Transport she replaced the dire Mr Ranger who had clearly not got to grips with LU or Cycling issues. The tube was in some trouble performance wise and City Hall realised they needed to “crack the whip” and Ms Dedring was used to administer the necessary scrutiny and “encouragement” to improve.
Hendy and, to an extent, Kiley before him are both personable characters who have commanded respect among their staff, despite controversy surrounding both their personal lives. Whoever replaces PH, it is vital that this continues. I’m not sure that Isobel Dedring would fulfill this – she has a reputation among senior managers at TfL for micromanaging and being a bit of a rottweiler.
Looking at Ms Dedring’s travel expenses for FY 2013-14 (http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/i-dedring-25-apr14.pdf) I wonder if Ms Dedring doesn´t have free travel on public transit within Greater London?
(I think there a discussion about sir Peter´s travel benefits in another thread…)
@ TKO – with one exception I suspect the travel costs in Greater London all relate to the use of TOC services that are outwith the scope of a TfL Staff Pass. Being based at City Hall the use of NR services will nearly always give a quick journey time to places like Greenwich and Wimbledon.
All the above comments about possible successors are intriguing for the names not mentioned…
Theban – your comment that any competent manager can run any business (if I misinterpret, I apologise) does not ring true, from experience. Privatised railways (less so with buses as many were management buy-outs – at first) lost a lot of experienced operational staff, replaced by ‘outsiders’. While relevant governments gave sweeteners to push newly-private [rail] businesses into economic viablity (such as five year pension contribution holidays – an act just short of criminality in this retired person’s view – and VAT reliefs), outsiders made things worse, leading to a merry-go-round of poaching the remaining experienced staff from other operators to sort things out. Several TOCs/franchises still operate with losses and increased public subsidy. It’s not outsiders who make the difference but outsiders who take the time to understand the operations (and don’t ‘save money’ by sacking 150 spare train drivers for example, then have to re-hire them).
@WW
What indeed does a politician mean when he says “paused”? Maybe as you suggest it does mean less than “cancelled” but I would suggest it also means more than the usual meaning of “paused” because there’s no real commitment to resumption.
@All
Does anybody have a list of the schemes which are “paused”? For example, are the BML works near Croydon now “paused”?
There is a bit of a danger of wandering off-topic, but PH is an example of a successful manager who really knows his industry inside out. The theory that any competent manager can manage in any organisation has been bandied about for decades and in my experience is really not true. There is one area that the insider knows off by heart, that is, where the major risks are and how they can be avoided. Not all insiders can translate this into management, but most outsiders don’t even know where to start. Of course there are exceptions, and it is usually an exceptional ability to listen that makes a brilliant outsider able to walk in and successfully take on a totally new area of work.
DT
Or, indeed, “guvmint” pushing airline people ( If only because [Even now, sigh] air travel is “the future” & “sexy”) into rail jobs & then finding out, at horrid expense that it ain’t so & totally worng….
Indeed the whole idea of separating tracks from operations, came from the roads & airlines & it still doesn’t seem to have penetrated some of the skulls inside DfT …..
A very enjoyable thread; thanks for all the compliments! I would indeed like a framed copy of the Kipper Williams cartoon – will someone say where it originated? And, ps, of course I have an over 60 Freedom Pass – as well as a staff pass. I am a London Council tax payer after all! Peter
@ Peter Hendy – the cartoon was posted on Twitter by Kipper Williams who drew the cartoon for the Guardian.
Original tweet – https://twitter.com/KipperWilliams/status/614384741933031424
K Williams Twitter Account – https://twitter.com/KipperWilliams
Website – http://www.kipperwilliams.com/
There are contact details via the website and I expect you will have contacts with the Guardian Newspaper directly or via TfL press office. Hope that helps.
@ Theban – the only stated “paused” schemes are MML electrification and electrification on the Transpennine routes. The latter also includes the proposed “paid for by First Group” electrification from Hull to the ECML. The SoS was at pains to say that infrastructure work on the MML to add tracks and raise line speeds (which is ongoing) had NOT been paused. Given the number of Midlands Tory MPs who asked questions in the house it’s perhaps no surprise that not everything was halted. Of course what they don’t understand is that their demands for more diesel trains and increased frequencies (several asked for this) are probably impossible to meet given there was no expected Accessibility modifications spend to keep EMT’s HSTs in service beyond 2020. The expectation, I think, had been that IC225s from the East Coast route would move across but that’s blown out of the water if there are no wires beyond Bedford. Happy to be corrected btw as I’m not 100% up to date on individual schemes.
The document people are waiting to see is Network Rail’s CP5 Delivery Plan update whose publication was imminent. I’ve not seen anything from people who’d know that it has been published. Perhaps DfT got an advance copy and that was what forced last week’s decision given the warning signs were evident 8 months ago? It remains to be seen as to what is published and whether it reflects the SoS’s decision on “paused” schemes or not. I dare say the atmosphere will get more fevered rather than less as more questions are asked and the ramifications of the decisions become more evident to people. Hopefully the Transport Select Committee, once re-established, will get its teeth into the issues.
“any competent manager can manage in any organisation ”
This is a fairly vacuous claim in my view. Undisprovable, because if someone is transplanted unsuccessfully, then observers simply claim that the person couldn’t have been a competent manager anyway.
What is true, and can be verified anecdotally, is that when a successful manager moves into a totally different field, previously unknown to them, sometimes they manage very well, and sometimes they fail dismally. Admittedly this rule is not very helpful, though, when it comes to predicting the future. (Normally the only thing worth predicting).
Theban asks ‘What indeed does a politician mean when he says “paused”? ‘
The natural meaning would be just like the result of pressing PAUSE on a DVD player. In due course, when you have finished dealing with the phone call, you can press it again, and carry on where you left off. Except that you might not, you might decide to eject it and watch the news instead.
I’ve been through the “Press” part of the Network Rail website, to remind myself what has or hasn’t begun. I’ve found:
NW triangle electrification: lots of news items about bridges, many claiming early finishes. The only recent item about actual electrification was the start of electric services between Liverpool Lime Street & Manchester Airport. Strangely quiet about four-tracking Huyton & Roby and electrification via St Helens.
Manchester to Stalybridge: almost no news. Is this stretch still included in NW triangle rather than paused in Transpennine?
Transpennine electrification: only news is reconstructing two bridges between Leeds and York.
(East) Midland Main line: lots of bridge work in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire, Civil Engineering work to prepare for redoubling Kettering to Corby, piling for electrification between Bedford and Kettering.
And the big question is
Has any of this work that has begun, been stopped?
[Lets not expand our territory. Whilst there are sometimes occasions when talking about issue in other parts of the country may be valid – the consequences of which affect stock availability for services in London for example – in general we do not want a discussion of topics more suited to elsewhere.
So the big answer is
We are not telling you
PoP]
Thanks for the contact details for Kipper Williams!
Peter
PoP: fair enough.
I was just trying to lead towards an answer to the McLoughlin meaning of “paused”.
@Alan Griffiths – Alan, ah Alan, McLoughlin is a politician and his words will mean whatever he wants them to mean now- and more importantly, at some indeterminate time in the future. Remember Humpty Dumpty’s dictum about words meaning what he wanted them to mean…
@ Malcolm Problem is if you pause to long you will find you can’t watch the news as you still have a analogue TV and we now have digital TV !
Fact is you will need a lot of diesel locomotives ( which comply with EU emission standards) to replace HST locomotive in same way as Chiltern Railways does …
Of course carriage with pantograph could be introduced on all Meridien and Voyager DEMUs
Translation Politician – English for ‘paused’.
Politicians never want to commit themselves in public before they have taken a formal decision. So they use language to give themselves space and time. If you read too much into what they say, you will be mistaken.
So, ‘pause’ =
‘Not going ahead as of now’
‘Not cancelled as of now’
@ Briantist — On this wonderful site of pedantry, as a telecoms pedant I should point out that all-figure dialling was introduced throughout the UK in the late 1960s. (I am old enough to know that the reason the code for Uxbridge (to keep things in London) is 01895 is that it was originally 0UX5; and that Dartford 01322 was 0DA2; and what’s now 020 7734 xxxx was once 01 REG xxxx.)
Having again read the Network Rail website
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/network-rail-publishes-annual-report-201415-as-it-announces-review-of-five-year-plan
which received much less media attention than the DfT item and the Minister’s statement, I’m beginning to wonder if much work on new sites was expected to begin during the few months of Peter Hendy’s review?
(PoP: London dimension is relationship of timing of infrastructure works to arrival of new trains and cascading of older trains. Liverpool Lime St to Manchester Airport is using former Thameslink trains)
@Alan Griffiths
“Strangely quiet about ……………….electrification via St Helens.”
For clarification – electrification via St Helens Junction on the original Chat Moss route is complete to both Victoria and Picadilly (using class 319s).
Carefully using this to steer the thread back onto LR matters (if not Sir Peter’s translation), if the route via St H Central to Wigan is “paused” this will affect the cascade of class 319s from Thameslink, which may well have consequences for the cascade down south.
One could probably write a book on “101 Uses for a Spare Class 319”
NR project delays.
1 very transferable lesson from the “pause” to the Transpennine works that is applicable to many London projects and has been missed by most media analysis:
The Transpennine works were planned quite along time ago and had 2 elements:
a) capacity enhancement and journey time improvement by electrification
b) capacity enhancement (and to a lesser extent journey time improvement) by other infrastructure measures taking place at the same time such as line speed improvement, platform lengthening, and four-tracking* in places (all measures being looked at for several routes radiating out of London at the moment.) Some had been on the table for a very long time many pre-dating the suggestion of electrification.
The works in b) were picked from a range of options based on an assumption of very low passenger growth rates (Northern was assumed to be a “no growth” franchise when it was previously let – similar to several in the South-East which were assumed to be low growth an equally questionable assumption).
Unfortunately the growth rates have been much higher than estimated (and show every sign of remaining so) and the time elapsed since the infrastructure options were picked now means that the Manchester – Leeds would now be operating over capacity as soon as the electrification and infrastructure were complete.
As the spades haven’t hit the ground yet, it is therefore sensible to review if the options selected and if necessary re-do the selection process so that the options that added more capacity (and were more expensive) but weren’t picked are now selected to produce a revised scheme that is operating at less than capacity and with room for growth on day 1…
Many London projects that are on the drawing board (CR2, Bakerloo Extension at the larger end and a multitude of smaller ones) with long gestation periods are similarly at risk of being over-whelmed and many need fitness for purpose or reoptioneering reviews if growth rates remain higher than official planning estimates.
Similar trends can be seen in Crossrail 1 where existing surface NR stations weren’t going to be lengthened beyond the initial 205m platform length now virtually everything will be ready for 250m so train lengthening can be done very easily. The London Bridge rebuild has also got effected in similar way with higher growth rates leading to reassessment of how to run services during the rebuild from the point the thinking was originally done around the time of planning approval to the point they were actually having to run the modified services.
“Is the project still fit for purpose?” is the key question being asked about proposed Transpennine works and unfortunately the answer appears to be “no” because a key aim is no longer met (i.e. adds enough capacity) so it is very sensible to redesign as it will be cheaper to add capacity in just 1 attempt not 2.
* four-tracking – effectively re-four-tracking in places where the track layouts were simplified to twin track in the 1960s and 70s.
See NR’s similar thinking on the West Anglia Main Line to reinstate the easy/cheap bits of extra tracks (in only 3 through Tottenham Hale) vs the more expensive CR2 approach of 4 track all the way.
@timbeau
The NW triangle is not paused but your point still stands. Trans-Pennine electrification was expected to create a haven for indigent 317s, weary of the bustle of the GE. The call for tenders for the TPE franchise explicitly gives an option for use of diesel loco-hauled 442s. Presumably this option has now become more likely.
@ Ngh – does your interesting comment about schemes being designed for low growth rates blow a hole through Network Rail’s regional studies? I ask because the estimates of patronage growth and revenue (used for the business cases in those studies) have often seemed a bit weak to me. Obviously trying to predict out to 2043 is very difficult but I wonder if we will see a more challenging approach to growth estimates and business cases?
As you mentioned the Northern franchise it is worth saying that Patrick McLoughlin used the “zero growth” franchise award under Labour to “slap” his Labour shadow round the chops in the debate after his announcement last week. The cynic in me was left wondering quite what basis the next Northern franchise will now be let on.
@WW
Surely McLoughlin’s attack lays him open to the charge that either he did nothing to update the franchise or, if the franchise was not changeable, did nothing to alter the franchise system. If the current franchises are not flexible, then he can be accused of knowing about the problem but doing nothing about it.
Re WW,
Second point first:
Next Northern Franchise is definitely being let on a growth basis but what the growth rate is isn’t stated but looking at the some of the ITT documents the growth rates are circa 6-7% p.a. (i.e. suppressed demand is assumed!).
Interestingly reading the Northern ITT:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407802/northern-invitation-to-tender.pdf
(published just before Purdah)
Thursday won’t have been “news” to anyone who read this on p100:
i.e. TP electrification is to be assumed NOT to take place until well into CP6…
Also going from 0 to 50% DOO won’t go down well with the RMT… but will do something for the cost base.
First Point – Growth rates
As seen in the comments under many Jonathan Roberts articles (and plenty of others!) there can be big differences between actual and modelled growth rates. The 2008 recession didn’t dent passenger growth in L&SE like the previous one in 1988-92. Average growth rates are running higher than modelled, this means the absolute number of passengers is increasing very quickly so growth rates would have to be very slow to get back to average – the danger of using percentages and compounding.
The latest ORR data:
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18095/passenger-rail-usage-2014-15-q4.pdf
L&SE passenger data for FY2014-15:
Passengers km +3.4% p.a.
Passengers Journeys +4.2% p.a.
Passengers Revenue +7.3% p.a.
Some back of the envelope modelling:
Some schemes (minimal growth cases) in the RUSs have assumed passenger growth rates of just 0.5 to 1% over a very long time period i.e. a scheme might increase capacity by 30% and this is assumed to be enough to last decades (i.e. still spare capacity in 2043), unfortunately at 4.2% that gives you extra capacity for just 7 year growth. Given the planning and construction timetables of 5 years, 80% of capacity might have already been filled by the time the scheme is ready. With the Transpennine example the planning period was longer say optioneering when Adonis was in GMH gives 7 years of growth before a spade has been seen so growth + suppressed demand is already greater than the proposed enhanced capacity.
Applying the same logic closer to home:
Based on the council planning documents the London Bridge rebuild is designed to increase capacity by 35% from the original (current version of the scheme) completion date 2016 i.e. before it was slowed down and completion pushed back.
At 4.2% (a big assumption that the lines into LBG are increasing at the regional average) assuming that would give suggests the extra capacity is used up by June 2024. However if growth between the time of planning and 2016 was also higher at 4.2% the capacity could be used up sooner. [the LR favourite of Crossrail being full almost as soon as it is built syndrome.]
Network Rail has foreseen this with the RUS process being replaced with the Long Term Planning Process (LTPP) where there is a demand study then a route study. (The RUS process with these growth rates looks little like rearranging deck chairs on the proverbial).
Part of the problem seem to be the NR schema assessment process and the assumptions they have to make, The draft Sussex study was interesting in that it suggested many metro schemes wouldn’t get approved by NR methodology but would by TfL methodology.
Carne’s digital railway (ATO, ERTMS everywhere etc) seems like a response to this as it could increase capacity across most of the network relatively quickly (if they have enough suitable people to do it).
Going back to earlier with higher growth rates doing a cheap job on the WAML i.e. 3/4 tracking in places then redoing for CR2 a few years later potentially looks a little silly and it might make sense to do it in one go.
@ngh
Part of the reason for the increase in STAR costs in the Lea Valley is because Network Rail is designing it to be easily expandable from 3 to 4 tracks in due course.
@ngh – yes, it would be useful if the pause led to some re-assessment /update of the planning assumptions behind the paused schemes (indeed, at first blush, I read your post as a clever attempt to spin the pause) but there is the obvious problem with using hindsight to justify the selected trend.
Re Milton Clevedon,
Indeed STAR is a useful example of something that has been re-scoped, I didn’t touch on the added complexity of increased costs due to inclusion of more passive provision for future upgrades as the next round of upgrades are expected to be needed sooner.
Re Graham H,
Better to do it once than have to come back after a few years for another round with it costing far more overall.
I think there have been some oops moments on the Transpennine capacity upgrades. For example the capacity upgrades were designed for 23m DMUs (pre electrification and the massive DMU order than was announced but never happened) so platforms were to be extended to 6x23m (i.e. 2x 3 car units so min. 145m platform length) unfortunately the stock heading in their direction is 319s with circa 15 years of life left (surplus to requirements from Thameslink, which helps keep the total electrification costs low by they are 4x 20m which leaves a problem. That gives a unit length of 80m (1 Unit) or 160m (2 Units) so do you:
a) lengthen the platforms to 165m instead
b) only run single units (80m) in which case there is 60m of platform spare
c) shorten them to 3 car to run double units (120m) in which case there is 20m of platform spare
a) being the obvious answer in the light of current circumstances but not on the table pre pause.
Closer to home last Sussex RUS suggested 10car metro services would be sufficient to last, the draft route study (published last Autumn) suggested that contemplating 12 car Victoria metro services would be needed in the light of higher growth rates before the end of the period the RUS covered. Plenty of other example s will emerge as more of the route studies are published.
(Just drafts for Anglia, Sussex & Wessex published so far)
The problems appears that the thinking hasn’t been big enough and is stuck in the small incremental improvements mode.
From the start of work on a route study to publishing the drafts and final versions could easily be 2 years – how much would the analysis change in the interim with higher growth rates? Will they need to be refreshed far sooner?
If the schemes needed get bigger but the pot of money available remains largely fixed there are going to be some big arguments unless the fares box keeps growing well.
@ngh – whilst I agree with you that the thinking, too often, isn’t “big enough”, and that problem has been insitutionalised by the disaggregation of the industry, there is no way of avoiding the problem that you have to go on the best information available at the time. Reviewing the schemes a couple of years after their initial design runs the risk that the forecasts have changed and the schemes need further review, so entering yet another cycle of delay. At some point, you cannot avoid pushing the start button, otherwise…. the history of Crossrail neatly illustrates the point.
Don’t get me wrong – I am a great advocate of futureproofing but it is inevitable that some,maybe much, of that will be wasted in the event. There isn’t an answer to the point except for a plea for commonsense, although that doesn’t cut very much mustard with HMT, who have been brought up on a regular diet of Cornford.
@Theban: Oddly enough, with all the talent in the world to choose from – and with competitive salaries offered – pretty much every single MD of a franchise or rail concession in the UK is an ex-BR management trainee, TOC/NR employee, or comes from London Underground. We could argue this is a ‘jobs for the boys’ (I don’t think there is a single ‘girl’ in charge of a franchise at present) situation, but I don’t believe it is the case. The operations and economics of running railways is simply something quite unique. Also, I don’t think just being a good manager cuts the mustard – in any industry. If you do not understand the mechanics of your particular industry, you will not be a good manager in it.
Regarding the ‘pausing’, I think ngh is spot on with his analysis. I would also add that many of the inadequacies and overruns were known well before the election, but tucked away in places where the general public couldn’t see and those that could faced stiff punishment for telling. Also, if the electrification projects are in trouble, it makes sense to stop those less advanced ones and redirect resources to those where the proverbial shovels are already in the ground.
According to my lexicon “paused” is politico-speak for “we’re probably going to cancel this when people stop noticing it but for the moment we’re not going to say that”, but obviously ymmv applies.
As regards Sir Peter’s departure I feel it is a great loss for London (not only for TfL) as he’d succeeded in getting many useful (and less useful – NB4L) through the hoops. One thing though might happen which is an expansion of the ‘concession’ model as a way to control costs?
I wish him well in his new position 🙂
Referring to my own comments 28 June 2015 at 19:24 I’m inclining to the view that “paused” means
“I’m the cabinet minister and I’m making a big show of giving people the impression that I’m taking control of the situation”.
(What’s more I’m doing this to head of the criticism subsequently made by the Opposition).
Growth rates revisited:
Looking at the ORR data (I know but the best publicly available)
London and South East data series started in FY2002-03 with the average annual growth rate in passenger journeys being 4.6%
The annual growth rate for the longer running national data series over the same time period is 4.5%.
Since the national data series began in 1988 the growth rate is in passenger journeys is just 2.8%.
But if you strip out periods of recession and immediate recovery the normal growth rate is 4.6%
and the recession and immediate recovery growth rate is -1.4%
(I tried to have better look at GDP data and passenger growth rate but the linkage is only noticeable for the newer FY2002 -03 data series so not much data to play with)
@ngh – yes,but the long term series is, in fact, three wholly incompatible series. Because ORR insisted on aggregating ticket sales data and because of the way that data was collected ( journeys across different operators’ flows counted as two – or more -separate trips), ORR’s figures for the first decade or so are rubbish (as has often been pointed out here) and contrast with what went both before ORR existed and after they saw the light in 2002. Soyou are here comparing apples, pears,and bananas.
BTW Statistically,I don’t believe it’s good practice to eliminate the troughs on the grounds they don’t count, doubly so because of the lack of continuity in the data series.
Re Graham H,
That makes sense on the data series they do have a different look and feel.
The point of some of the rest of the analysis was to show that it might be wise to expect journey growth of 4+% in non-recessionary times rather than be surprised by it!
The IEP was “paused” for a while too, in 2010. A usefully vague term.
Ominous to see the word “frank” in the Network Rail press release’s description of Mark Carne’s advice to the government – I wonder if there was a “frank exchange of views” in response? The press release twice mentions the fact that he only joined Network Rail last year.
It also claims the Borders line is “Britain’s first new domestic railway for over 100 years”: I wonder whether the implied thinking that Underground lines don’t count will survive the arrival of Peter Hendy?
The thing about annual growth rates is that they are like compound interest – a few percent a year, if sustained most years, turns into a doubling or tripling over the period it takes to get a big scheme up and running. Speaking of which, is there any inkling of the impact on the Gospel Oak-Barking electrification?
Re Ian J,
New is also a questionable term for borders as it most just relaying track along the former alignment and there was probably more new civils work per mile on the ELL phase 2 gap…
ngh
That & the “imperative” from the voters, almost all of whom seem to want both more / better / faster / etc rail services …
What the guvmint is probably going to have to do is square the circle …
Probably by just taking longer & really making sure that the re-construction/upgrade works are done more efficiently.
The single case of the mast-drilling rigs is a case in point. If that can be replicated across the board, then all is well.
The other problem, of course is “regulatory”, in that costs are spread across all the fragmented players – which is a politcal, not an engineering problem.
Ina J
Britain’s first new domestic railway for over 100 years”
Err … Wimbledon – Sutton via the Wall of Death?
I have a strange feeling HS1 is a completely new railway, was completed within the last 100 years, and carries domestic services between St Pancras and various stations in Kent. But hey, what do I know…
Borders may be the longest to be opened in 100 years but it is most certainly not the first. As well as the Underground, and Greg’s example, a number of other branch lines were opened in the inter-war years – mainly under Colonel Stephens, such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Devon_and_Cornwall_Junction_Light_Railway#/media/File:North_Devon_and_Cornwall_Junction_Light_Railway_map.gif now part of the Tarka Trail, as well as numerous new spurs e.g in Liverpool (loop and link), Nunhead spur, Rotherham, Lincoln etc.
HS1 carries domestic traffic too – surely that counts?
But of course the Borders Line isn’t really new at all – it is a reopening – like Alloa, or Corby, or Ebbw Vale, or Maesteg, or the Argyle Line, or Liverpool’s Hunts Cross line
There really is no point over quibbling about such semantics. By choosing enough precise parameters: rebuilt counts as new, must be primarily intended for the domestic market, regarded as a “new railway” not merely a new line on an existing railway (e.g. Southern), doesn’t count if underground, must be of substantial length, re-instating freight lines to passenger use excluded etc. etc. one can no doubt prove the point but it is pretty, well, pointless.
I suspect there are lots of counter-examples. I remember the Selby Diversion at the time in the 1980s was touted as the first new railway in Britain for fifty years – and that was less than fifty years ago.
London’s Loss? Really?
Frankly, TFL will benefit from a Londoner at the helm, with Crossrail 2 and the Overground expansion requiring lockstep co-operation and focus from Network Rail on routes they have neglected for decades.
@P Riddy – why a Londoner specifically should be able to do the job rather than someone who has other, more important qualities, such as understanding transport, is unclear. Is this something to do with The Knowledge? In what way did you find that Peter Hendy lacked London expertise?
And whilst NR can always do more, the SW Inners have had quite a slug of investment in recent decades.
PS Here’s a clue – NR have existed for only a little over a decade…
@ Ian J – not sure what impact you are referring to re GOBLIN wiring. Are you referring to “pausing” or “growth rate under estimation”? AFAIK the scheme’s not paused otherwise I am sure it would have been mentioned and there would have been a furore already. I expect there will be questions to the Mayor for the July MQT on the whole issue of Network Rail and what it means for London’s rail commuters.
One could imagine a discussion between Boris and Mr McLoughlin which required certain conditions to be met in return for the release of a certain experienced Transport Commissioner at very short notice. [I can’t believe Sir Peter has a standard 4 week leaving period in his contract, more like several months and yet he’s going pretty quickly]. I’m not saying it happened merely that my imagination can picture said scenario.
On the growth point I think it’s fair to say the a “sparked” GOBLIN with longer trains will pull in more punters. I’d say that is guaranteed at peak times regardless of whether we get journey time improvements as well as longer trains. Off peak I’d say there will be some growth but the DMUs aren’t yet full to bursting off peak so more than doubling capacity at those times gives plenty of room for more. The three things that might change that are the Riverside extension, higher service frequency and more stations / better interchange. I will say no more because we’ve had an awful lot of comment on other threads over many months about these things and they’re all for the future.
@Graham H
“the SW Inners have had quite a slug of investment in recent decades. ”
…………..strange then that the train I travelled to work on today was 30 years old, and was slower and had fewer seats than would have been the case when I first used it 25 years ago, and the service is now much more prone to cancellation and short workings than it was then. I also had to walk further to get into the station in the first place than I did then, and no longer have anywhere indoors to wait for the train (not that it matters today, but it certainly did in the winter). Staffing levels are also pared to the bone (except for “revenue protection” of course).
I don’t know what they’ve spent the money on, but it’s not evident round here.
(Oh, there is now a lift – to a platform which already had step-free access from when it was built 150 years ago!)
@timbeau – I didn’t know that NR invested in rolling stock.
@ P Riddy. I really must agree with Graham H because I don’t accept that a Londoner at the helm will be advantageous over someone who can look at the picture as a fresh canvas.
Why?
Because a west Londoner will have extensive knowledge of his local turf, and scant knowledge of Catford etc. Someone from Croydon could well have better knowledge of Benidorm than they have of Brentford. Too much local knowledge of one’s own cabbage patch can actually be a disadvantage in situations like this, and those from the other side of town can easily feel discriminated against.
Someone from outside the bubble, will probably have a better overall picture of the bubble.
@Graham H
What infrastructure investment has there been on the SW inners then? There has been lots of talk about five-tracking etc, but apart from the re-jigging to accommodate Eurostar, the track layout hasn’t changed significantly since this project was completed –
http://www.wbsframe.mste.co.uk/public/pdf/Clapham_Jct_A_1936.18N.PDF
Everything else has been little more than like-for-like renewal/maintenance. Certainly end-to-end speeds have not improved.
@timbeau – well, the last time I looked (ie last week), we seem to have had the revamp of Waterloo and CJ (NR not responsible for the others), power upgrade, and the more or less complete renewal of the track. Yes, it’s not enough, it never is, but it’s much the same as the rest of the commuter network that isn’t part of TLK or CR. Ministers simply haven’t been prepared to bankroll the infrastructure improvements – hardly NR’s fault,as Priddy implies. Sir Peter’s move is irrelevant to the question, of course: TfL has never been responsible for SW infrastructure and nor will Sir Peter’s successor be so.
Looking further afield for a candidate, I wonder about Dr Jon Lamonte, the chief executive of Transport for Greater Manchester?
Pretty much multi-modal, extensive construction experience from the expansion of the Metrolink system, and might just like to bale out as the Northern Powerhouse and associated projects seem to be slowing down.
And by the way, he was was the CEO of Tube Lines from 2011 – 12.
@Graham H
Not much spent on the infrastructure for the inner suburban services there. And nothing out of the ordinary – you could make a similar list for most routes.
“revamp of Waterloo” moving some retail units around: no changes to track or platforms since the Eurostar-inspired changes twenty years ago. They haven’t even brought the ES platforms back into regular use yet.
“and CJ” ok, I’ll give you that one, although I still avoid the place as much as possible.
“power upgrade” done for the power-hungry 450s and 444s on the outer suburbans and main line. The 455s on the inners were fine with on what was there already.
“more or less complete renewal of the track.” Maintenance and like-for-like renewal. That’s not investment, it’s business as usual.
Re:SWT, you miss the elephant in the room: the shoddy, air-con less 455s which SWT commuters will have to put up with for another 10 years. Meanwhile, the GW,GE, Thameslink and GN lines all get new trains.
@James – NR, as I remarked earlier, doesn’t buy trains at all, ever*. so the point about rolling stock quality doesn’t apply.
@timbeau – my point was simply that the SW Inners are neither better off nor worse off in investment terms than most of the rest of the network and so claims that they are “neglected for decades” is hardly the case. {Whether expenditure on track and other infrastructure counts as new investment or simply replacing like for like is a particularly difficult issue for regulators – on a par with the problem of what is “level flight” in terms of renewals programmes; it is more than likely that improving the track to take the heavier Siemens stock wold count in part as new investment, and the same goes for power upgrade as the separation of inners and outers is far from complete.).
BTW, you may not use CJ, but that surely doesn’t negate NR’s investments there?
*Indeed, regulators have been to great lengths to prevent NR owning rolling stock; even the MPVs caused considerable head scratching.
James 18:30
The newest 455 trains are only 30 years old. Of course they will be around for another ten years or so as 40 years is perfectly normal for a trains longevity.
Would you rather your fares / taxes were higher to replace trains more often, or should we just cast them off up north (where there is very little third rail) or to the south coastway?
Re Graham H,
And many platforms have been lengthened to 10 car well (just not much stock yet though) and Waterloo is about to get some more investment (international platforms and P1-4 lengthening)
@James
“air-con less 455s ”
There is nothing wrong with the 455s except the new seats. Air-con is pointless in something which opens the doors every five minutes. (See Borismaster).
@Graham H
” so claims that they are “neglected for decades” is hardly the case. ”
I didn’t say that – but neither have they had a particularly large “slug of investment” compared with anywhere else
“you may not use CJ, but that surely doesn’t negate NR’s investments there?”
I acknowledged that I had overlooked it as I rarely use it: although some of it was long overdue – a section of canopy lost to bomb damage in 1940 meant that everyone emerging from the subway onto platform 10 had to brave the rain to reach shelter. It was finally replaced more than seventy years later.
@ngh
“And many platforms have been lengthened to 10 car (just not much stock yet though)”
Quite – we have had a platform lengthened, but they needn’t have bothered as the only 10-car train we get each day calls at the other platform, which was already long enough.
Seems Network Rail has invested its money in information on why speeds are reduced in this hot weather !
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/media-briefing-network-rail-battles-the-buckle-during-hot-weather
@timbeau -no – it wasn’t you who claimed that SW had been neglected for decades but P Riddy, and it was his assertion which he combined with some gratuitous remarks about Peter Hendy, that I was trying to combat, as being not quite (or indeed at all) the sort of thing that normally goes on on this site.
Whether the slug is a large one, or merely the sort I find in my lettuce patch is difficult to measure,but the catalogue of things done in the last decade under NR stewardship is by a considerable margin larger than anything either RT or NSE were funded to do.
@ Timbeau – I confess my experience of South West Trains is more positive than yours but the one fly in the ointment for me is indeed the absence of air conditioning on the 455 stock. I am not suggesting it should be retro fitted although I understand Wabtec offered it as an option but air conditioned trains in the inner suburbs can be very pleasant. London Overground and most of the Southern stock are relevant examples.
I do not think it is pointless due to having experienced its presence on the trains mentioned above and yes some cool air is lost when doors open (as incidentally it does on the new SSR stock) but you can make the same argument about the presence of heating on such trains in winter. Should we advocate its removal due to heat loss from frequently opening doors? I think not and these days roasting in what is a tin can and possibly having to stand as well is not good value for the ticket price.
Also some of these trains are used for relatively long journeys such as Guilford, Woking and Shepperton. The new trains on order will have air con and the services to Reading and Windsor already have this as curiously enough does the Hounslow loop
@Timebeau Air-con is fitted and works well on the class 378s and S stock, so don’t buy your argument that it can’t work. Besides, 455s are often used on the fast trains that run non stop between Waterloo and Surbiton, so it’s wrong to suggest they are stopping every 5 minutes anyway.
After days like today I would happily pay more to see the back of them.
No-one needs to ride a 455 all the way to Guildford or Woking of course, (although they do to Clandon). And yes, I was standing in a roasting hot 455 for half an hour this evening, but at least we could open the windows.
It is not really surprising that SWT put more modern stock (and 10-car trains) on Hounslow services – not only do half of them go on to Weybridge via Chertsey, which is quite a long way, but SWT are keen to increase (or at least maintain) their market share on the Hounslow line, where they compete with the parallel Piccadilly Line. Deeper into their core territory, where they already have 100% of the market, and no prospect of either losing any of it, or of getting any more, they have less incentive to improve matters.
As you say, some of the journeys made by 455s are quite long (it takes longer to get to Shepperton than it does to Winchester). And yet the seating is supposedly optimised for standees, especially from Wimbledon inwards. In fact, it isn’t very good even at that: the gangways are wider, because the seats are now 2+2 instead of 2+3, but as they are still not wide enough to stand two abreast, you can’t accommodate any more standees than before. And the new seat design no longer allows standees to “perch” on the ends. The 455 interior was a design classic until SWT got their hands on it. The addition of a 456 to make a ten-car train will only restore the seating capacity to what it was before the remodelling.
In terms of actual people on board, a 405/415 was even better – and most of them got seats: anything up to 120 per car, plus maybe 40 standing, and a few in the guards vans if required. (Formations varied, but a typical 8-EPB formation with two compartment trailers and two open ones would seat 772).
@james
“455s are often used on the fast trains that run non stop between Waterloo and Surbiton, so it’s wrong to suggest they are stopping every 5 minutes anyway.”
Most of their duties are all-stations, with the odd one skipping Berrylands. My own line is fairly typical – eight stops in 32 minutes. The only service that runs non-stop to Surbiton I can think of that is regularly run by a 455 is the 1923 ex Waterloo. (Of course, they do like to run non-stop services on an ad hoc basis to annoy commuters wanting to catch the trains at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction and Wimbledon)
@timbeau 455s certainly run on more services than that. The 0848 departure from Surbiton is always a 455 for example. And they all run on the semi fast services that don’t stop between Wimbledon and Surbiton.
So, the argument that air con wouldn’t work on 455s is wrong on two counts: stock on other lines which stop just as frequently (if not more frequently) has successfully implemented it, and on some services the gap between stops is significantly longer than 5 minutes anyway.
@James Doubtless there are 455-operated services which skip the odd station, but most of the 91-strong fleet is required to operate the all-stations services to Dorking, Guildford via Bookham, Chessington, Hampton Court, Shepperton, and the Kingston roundabout. Studying the round trip times suggests that the offpeak service requires fifty units to run just the off-peak service. Add the semi-fasts via Cobham (which only miss three of the seventeen stations between Waterloo and Guildford) requires a further ten units: arguably 450s should be on those, but SWT chooses to use them on the favoured Hounslow Loop instead.
Getting back on the point, what would you do if you were in Sir Peter’s (old) shoes?
My own shopping list:
1. Bike hire kiosks, if the station is empty and there are no bikes available within 300m, to issue a free bus ticket to any keyholder. (yes, I have had a bad morning)
2. Introduction of a direct bus service between Waterloo and the western end of the City (via Fleet Street or Holborn does not count as “direct”). (that didn’t make my morning any better!)
Diversion of route 100 or 172 would be an easy fix for that, and the excuse I have had that such a route would get overcrowded sounds like “we can’t do that, people might actually use it!
3. No bus to operate without a conductor unless it is Euro 6 compliant. (NBfL’s are only compliant to Euro 5!)
4. Better enforcement of road traffic laws, particularly against taxis stopping where they cause an obstruction.
5. resolution of the uber/black cab problem (still working on that one!)
6. Put all NR services within Zones 1-3 on the Tube map – not necessarily as prominent as TfL’s own lines, but they should be there.
7. TfL staffing levels, etc to be applied to all stations, regardless of operator, within Greater London.
Having done an extensive trip on the Circle line in the evening peak yesterday can I just say that if air conditioning makes a difference to such a trip (it was a good 10 degrees cooler than on the Central Line) then installing it on suburban trains should not be a topic up for discussion.
@straphang
“Circle line ……..was a good 10 degrees cooler than on the Central Line”
Not surprising – the Central Line is in a deep tunnel with little opportunity for the heat to escape. For a fairer comparison, try a D stock vs an S stock, on the same line.
@timbeau: Again, as a regular customer, I find the presence of air-con on frequently stopping vehicles fully justified.
Here’s an idea.
Trains would not be so hot if they had windows that you could open a bit to increase ventilation.
This would mean that (a) there would be no need for massively heavy and expensive air conditioning equipment to be carried on every train. (b) The energy saving would be massive. (c) The air conditioning equipment would not need servicing or break down
Why was it not needed on earlier stock but makes it necessary now?
Sorry, but I really do think that this is something I will bring up with my local ‘Green Party’ soon, as my personal view is that this is environmental madness.
As someone who travelled for many years on slam door stock on the LTS mostly on stock with door droplights to every bay and then air conditioned class 357s I know what I’d prefer to travel in day in day out – the 357s. Stock with opening windows is uncomfortable at anything above the slowest speeds, the 302s etc at 50mph and above with all windows open would result in pressure pulses of air which were just as hot (or in the winter cold) as that outside. Added to that at higher speeds is the noise and to be honest with all that air turbulence as opposed to a smooth sided vehicle profile is there going to be much difference in energy consumption? Same debate is frequently discussed in respect of cars too.
I must admit I was aghast at Castlebar’s suggestion for the some of the reasons given by Alfie1014. Having caught a very crowded train to London this morning (a 377) and committed myself to a half hour journey with no escape beyond East Croydon I know which I prefer. I do wonder if I would have even attempted the journey if I knew the train wasn’t air-conditioned. The thought of being stuck in a crowded non-airconditioned train outside London Bridge doesn’t bear thinking about. I continued my journey via Cannon St and the Circle Line rather than take the shorter route via the Jubilee Line because I couldn’t face the non-airconditioned Jubilee Line in the peak period with the temperatures as they are.
This morning I was sat on a Wimbledon branch D-stock permanently on the edge of sweating.
The reverse journey now (when the outside temperature is actually higher) is perfectly acceptable on chilled S-stock (but obviously warm if the sun is in you through a window).
No question in my mind which I prefer. On a hot day of time permits I’ll sometimes let the D78 pass for a more pleasant journey on an S.
It’s fascinating how this article about Sir PH’s move to Network Rail has led to ‘lots’ of comments on thing s over which Network Rail, in general, and the Chairman to be, in particular, have no influence. Interesting comments though!
@Castlebar/Alfie – the cost of installing, powering and carting about aircon is truly astonishing. In the Department, we found that the addition to the NPC of rolling stock was in excess of 20%.
@ GH
Thank you!
20% cost is the figure that I had intended to include within my post, so, as I had no verifiable source, I left it out. This only strengthens my feelings on this issue as I’d prefer to travel on a train where you can open/close the window. Always
And as a global energy crisis looms, and also climate change too, this sort of extravagance and waste of energy verges on the criminal (in my opinion). Future generations will be disgusted by this type of nonsense. No wonder the tunnels are hotter. Just THINK about it!
Having met a dripping (NOT drippy) Pedantic at the HS2 select committee this AM, I can see his problem.
My 159 9-car this evening is the newly downgraded SWT Sauna Class, and for once windows might help (unit is 159 003). But the Phil the friendly guard can’t get through, it’s standing throughout. However WE have the trolley at the front end, so even steven. Severe weather isn’t just about snow/ice etc. However, what can Sir Peter do about it? Inventing NR rules about non-aircon trains not being acceptable on the network beyond 2020? – same as disability regs – might cause a storm in an ice bucket. I think ATOC needs to employ Chilly Willy as a mystery shopper, who lives in a fridge and gets unwell if he catches a warm.
Castlebar/Graham H
I’m guessing that the “PC” part of NPC is “Power Consumption” but am not sure what the “N” stands for….
This 20% is a remarkably high figure for a facility that is only really necessary for a couple of weeks maximum in a normal year.
I’ve asked before (and it’s my only hobby-horse which I allow myself to actually take out for a canter)….Has here ever been/are there any plans for an EMU which uses LESS power than the stock it replaces?
As Castlebar points out,we’re going to face the incredulity (best case scenario) of our descendants if we don’t get a grip on energy consumption….
@slugabed – NPC stands for Net Present Cost, which is the sum total of all the costs over the life of a project, suitably discounted. (You don’t want to know more, already, I can tell – it’s a means of comparing different investments which have different cash flow profiles over time).
As to your substantive question – when we were planning what became the Networker, the challenge Chris Green put to the engineers was 1/3 off first cost, 1/3 off maintenance, and 1/3 off energy consumption, compared with what was to be replaced. As I recall, the energy savings were only about 1/6 in the event, but others may recall the precise figure. I very much agree with you about energy conservation – it’s all too easy to say that my little charger plugged in with nothing attached is too small to make a difference, but then we discover that “empty” chargers consume the equivalent of a whole power station… to take one of my unfavourite examples.
Graham H
Thank you….and I’ve just unplugged my charger…
@Jonathan Roberts. Offtopic alert!!!!
I may have been on the same class 159 sauna as you (18.50 out of Waterloo?). The guard got through after Woking and did the decent thing (opened the windows). However, I had been vigorously perspiring all the way from Birmingham on a Pendolino, aircon or not! The Northern Line felt relatively cool in comparison with those two trains.
I recall the cost of air conditioning on S stock (an optional extra in the bid) was less that 10% of the train capital cost – my inckeasingly dodgy memory thinks about 7%. Energy is an issue but on a metro it’s not as simple as saying its power consumption is 15kW (or whatever the number is) as about 15% of the time the train powers its own air conditioning during regenerative braking.
Whatever the costs, all transport, these days, has air conditioning and so trains have to have it too. (This is a statement I am sure will be provocative!)
100andthirty: Not provocative to me. Reducing passengers’ comfort on the least energy-intensive mode – thus encouraging use of more inefficient forms of transport – seems somewhat questionable in the save-the-planet stakes. Although no doubt Paul Withrington* would be delighted to see that we are discussing removing aircon from trains!
*Who, entirely incidentally, once trailed me round the Birmingham Sea Life Centre at a particularly bizarre pre-conference drinks reception. The conference didn’t get any better either.
Slugabed,
Has here ever been/are there any plans for an EMU which uses LESS power than the stock it replaces?
Stung by comments about some of their earlier stock, I believe Siemens is fully committed to reducing power requirements of successive generations of stock (that is not quite the same as what you asked through).
If we can include vapourware then the New Tube for London will consume substantially less power than its replacement -that is one of the main objectives of it.
@Fandroid (More offtopic).
On 18:20 not 18:50.
Units (buffers to country end): 21\16\03. If 158 I would designate as R(refurb)3…
03 was the miscreant.
Fundamental is, what can Sir PH do? I fear not a lot.
Castlebar,
If it were just a matter of discomfort your argument might have a better case. I would query what opening windows would achieve on a very hot day when a train is stationary.
Would you like to be the one in front of the cameras as a packed commuter train breaks down and the highly stretched London Ambulance service deals with multiple fainting and worse? Hyperthermia is something we just don’t take seriously enough in this country. It used to be the same in France until a few years ago they discovered, retrospectively, how many people died in a heat wave. Basic rule: Hypothermia kills slowly, hyperthermia kills quickly. Unfortunately people who should know better, like the SAS, don’t realise this.
Castlebar,
I challenge you to read the report on the Thameslink train breakdown featured in the Rail Accident report here and tell me that you still think air-conditioning is unnecessary.
You might want to pay particular attention to paragraphs 81 and 82. Note the reference to load shedding in paragraph 76. This has changed since this incident and new trains now are required to be able to keep their air-conditioning function for a period (90 minutes I believe) after a complete failure of power. I can assure you this is not done for passenger comfort.
You might also wish to read this BBC article: Heatstroke: the heatwave killer.
On a record breaking day like today open windows LET HOT AIR IN!
While both my class 357s on C2C were really cool in fact some even put jumpers on when they board trains !
I wouldn’t bother unplugging your phone charger – if everyone did it religiously they might save at most 0.01% of national electricity usage. That might save the need for a wind turbine, but not a power station.
The more crowded trains get, the more demand there will be for air conditioning to make them bearable. On the other hand, the more crowded they are, the less energy consumption per person.
Just be glad Bulleid’s 4DD trains no longer run – they had neither air conditioning nor opening windows in the upper compartments.
As for what this has to do with Peter Hendy: Network Rail does have a big input into rolling stock specification (eg. they killed off Alstom’s proposed articulated design for Thameslink with their modelling of the effect it had on the tracks). If train companies buy more efficient trains, should they get some kind of discount on track access charges from Network Rail which won’t have to pay for power supply upgrades?
@Ian J – power is paid for separately by operators, so the incentive you claim, isn’t there. The example of the articulation being killed off by NR is not quite true either; it wasn’t any direct intervention by NR – simply that their track wear model – maybe unreasonably – loaded costs onto articulation. NR’s relationship to rolling stock specification is very limited – it specifies certain generic technical characteristics such as loading gauge, axle load and so on, just as RSSB specifies others such as crashworthiness. This gives them a veto but nothing approaching a positive input, any more than the Construction and Use regulations for motor vehicles mean that DfT “specifies” car design.
So,no Sir Peter will have very little to do with train design, just as McLoughlin doesn’t “have a big input” into road vehicles.
Comments about “each new train using more power than before” is a complicated issue especially when compared with the automotive sector. This digression illustrates the point. Automotive uses more or less exclusively diesel and petrol engines. They are quite inefficient in their use of the energy contained in their respective fuels – circa 25% and 50%. This is a significant improvement over the last 25 years. (Further digression, one could expect 90BHP from a 2l diesel engine in 1990 running at about 40mpg. Today, 190hp is not unusual with better mpg). Petrol engine development had lagged diesel, but is rapidly catching up since as emphasis has shifted from CO2 to NOx.
By comparison, electric trains have always been efficient in the use of the energy in their fuel (electricity). The inefficiencies in electricity generation and distribution are elsewhere. Energy efficiency of the power conversion/motor/gearbox of over 80% is typical. Thus the opportunity to reduce electricity consumption by improving energy efficiency are not as great as with IC engines. Whole train techniques for reducing energy take are more effective. The main available techniques are, a) carefully matching performance to the route (eg don’t ask for 100mph capability on routes where the top speed is barely only half that), keep weight down (but robustness is more important), drive sensible (no point driving ‘like a scalded bat out of hell” only to arrive 2 minutes early), design sensible timetables so as to “drive on the green”. The biggest single contribution to the net energy use of electric trains has been the introduction of regenerative braking where the motors generate electricity whilst slowing the train and this energy is used both to drive the train’s non-traction loads and to return electricity to the supply for others to use.
Notwithstanding all this, the railways are generally demanding trains that can get from A to B more quickly than the trains they replace, and, thus require more installed horsepower or MW. Also, in general, more trains are provided or they are longer. Thus a supplier may claim that its train is ‘the most energy efficient ever”, is nof incompatible with statements that the line on which it operates has to have an increase the capability of the power supply.
Some interesting stuff there, 100andthirty. I could add, though, that for trains to get from A to B more quickly, other things being equal, it is not more MW that are needed, but more MW per tonne. As a complete amateur I may be well out of line here, but I suspect that weight-saving (by choice of materials and clever design) will be an important route to greater efficiency in the next generation of trains. (And maybe cars, trucks and buses also). I think future generations may look back at our transport, and say “their payload to total weight ratios were how much?”
Re 100andthirty, (& PoP et al.)
In addition to you last paragraph, EMUs have also generally got heavier as a result of increasing crash worthiness requirements and it is only with the recent Thameslink and Crossrail tenders that required increased train efficiency which could only be achieved with significant weight reduction (combined with having to meet even stricter crash worthiness stands coming in shortly.) that will actually result new trains that are actually much more efficient. Siemens with Desiro City and Bombardier with Aventra (mk2).
The biggest weight savings with both will be moving from outside framed bogies to inside frames ones. With Bombardier Crossrail stock the new bogies will be 30% or 2.2 tonnes per bogie lighter than the existing design used on 377s etc so with 18 bogies per train that is 39.6 tonnes lighter per train. Also going for 9cars at 22.x metres rather than 10 at 20m removes 2 bogies which will saved another 9.2 tonnes (or 13.6t vs the old bogie design). This weight saving is equivalent to a current design fully loaded 20m EMU car.
The bogie weight saving alone probably means 3 fewer traction motors per Crossrail train (600-700kg each) and the equivalent of 1 fewer inverter / traction power supply / motor controller unit so another 4 tonnes saved on the traction side.
There have also been fairly large advance in traction motor and controlled efficiencies (with more to come in the future e.g. Silicon Carbide power electronics) which I’ve covered in other older posts which also cover regenerative braking efficiencies.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/getting-radical-piccadilly-line-upgrade-2/#comment-178860
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/rip-tube-upgrade-plan-long-live-new-tube-london/#comment-177147
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/rip-tube-upgrade-plan-long-live-new-tube-london/#comment-176882
Re Malcolm
Indeed the key metric is MW per tonne.
It is also worth point out that commuter trains don’t actually use full power for that long just accelerating out of station to keep so more trains per hour can be run (especially as the trains get longer they have to accelerate and brake faster to keep the same tph). Cutting the weight reduces the power needed to keep to an acceleration profile.
Many existing current generation units are traction power limited (in software) when running on 3rd rail to as low as 55% of max due to limited lineside power supplies.
Longer cars may mean fewer bogies (as does articulation) and thus less overall train weight, but there is more weight carried by each one, which will have an effect on the track. Swings and roundabouts.
As for regenerative braking, there is nothing new in that. The pre-war O and P stock had it (not entirely successfully, it must be admitted, as the shore supply couldn’t always cope with the fluctuating power being delivered to it from the trains). More successful was the Woodhead Line which, being a steady gradient, had a more stable feed.
Another form of regenerative braking (conversion of kinetic energy into another form for recovery later) was pioneered on the Central London Railway in 1900 – the stations are at a higher (i.e shallower) level than the running tunnels, allowing gravity to assist both braking to a halt and accelerating away from it. Very noticeable if you look along some of the tunnels in the West End.
“90BHP from a 2l diesel engine in 1990 running at about 40mpg. Today, 190hp is not unusual with better mpg”
Not really comparable. The power available under the right foot of most car drivers is rarely used. It is unlikely a car develops 90bhp (let alone 190), at any point when undergoing the mpg tests.
The power at the wheels may need to be more in a modern car to achieve the same speed profile as a 25-year old car, because the modern car is likely to be not only bigger but more solidly built to meet modern crash standards, and therefore heavier. But if it’s using less fuel, that means the engine is actually generating less power (power is energy per unit time, and the energy content of petrol hasn’t changed significantly in 25 years!). The improvements that allow less fuel to move a heavier car are in better efficiency in the power train (notably the trend to more and more gears), the ability to run cooler, etc.
@timbeau
You may be confusing average power with maximum deliverable power. Yes the engine of a modern car delivers less average power (per kilometre travelled), as you say, that is what the mpg improvement largely means. But it may still be capable of a greater maximum power level than older cars (of interest to many buyers, even if they have no sensible way, on the road, of using that power). The 90 and 190 bhp comparison is only about maximum power.
I understand the difference. But it is average power delivered, not installed power, which is relevant to energy efficiency.
(Which is also why pricing parking permits according to CO2 figures is perverse: a parked car emits no CO2 at all. Indeed, a two-car household of my acquaintance take the big car to work every day, so that only the small car needs a permit to be parked on the street during the restricted hours!)
Re timbeau,
Track access charges and longer cars /weight per bogie.
A lot of the track damage is due to the unsprung mass of the bogie. Taking the bombardier inside frame vs outside bogie as an example assuming a straight swap the unsprung mass of the bogie has been reduced by 25% but the total mass of each car would only be reduced by circa 10% but the track access charges reduced by 17%.
So the optimal situation to minimise track access charges is longer cars (so fewer bogies overall) which though it increases the total and sprung mass which matters far less but with lighter inside frame bogies resulting in lower unsprung mass which matters far more.
Pricing parking permits according to CO2 ratings does seem perverse.
And yet, it is probably being used partly as a proxy of “owner has money to spare”. Also as a proxy for vehicle length, which is important for total parking (unless there are individual marked spaces). And it could also have a nudge effect causing fewer big powerful cars to be acquired in the first place. Overall these effects, from the point of view of the public purse, and climate change, could perhaps be enough to more than counterbalance any perverse effects caused by particular circumstances.
An interesting interview with Sir Peter in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/03/ex-london-transport-chief-completes-move-national-rail
Note the not exactly surprising remarks about “no subsidy for London’s services” by 2019 plus the need for ongoing fare increases and the need for his successors to be inventive about protecting TfL’s budget into the future. I must say I’m a little concerned about the remark about the bus service funding in the future. I’m not the least bit surprised about his remarks about leaving TfL in the last paragraph of the article.
The Grauniad readers seem to have a mighty interesting way with words and an informed (or should that be uninformed) knowledge of the role of Network Rail.
@timbeau 2 Jul 11:33 – Indeed, regenerative braking has been around for years. But as you admit, it wasn’t a generally effective solution. As ngh showed, it’s recent advances in the technology delivering it that have made it far more useful and potentially universal.
ngh also mentions the improved energy efficiency of modern traction control systems. After all, with a DC series/parallel motor, the only type realistically usable til we got the power electronics that could drive AC motors, you needed a bank of resistors switched in at slow speeds when the back EMF was low. That was hardly energy-efficient……
(Maybe the job TI (not Tube Investments!!) offered me in ’78 or so, doing power transistor characterisation would have been more interesting that I thought at the time.)
Simple way to cut bus operating costs would be to order several hundred Artic buses and use them on a network of services in zones 1 and 2 ( thus avoiding fare avoiding incentive that route 25 from Ilford to Oxford Circus created!) thus allowing a reduction in the number of buses while creating more capacity .
The change to cashless buses makes using Artic routes no different to double deck routes as was the case when cash fares applied.
As for Borisbuses well they would all be offered for sale but in the meantime they would be moved to West London with Ruislip and Uxbridge given priority with Borismasters swapped with double deckers used there so Central London routes can enjoy buses with proper size front windows ( a boon for tourists) and opening windows in hotter central areas !
@timbeau
If your two car owning household thinks that they save money by taking the big car to work every day in order to avoid paying more for the residential parking permit then either they’re not doing the maths or their journey to work is so short that they should be walking or cycling. The additional costs in fuel (assuming a big petrol engine – other will not incur the high CO2) surcharge will outweigh the additional cost of the parking permit at a journey of about a mile each way if undertaken 200 days a year. In either case the suspicion about having more money than sense is suggested. It also demonstrates what the RAC has found – that drivers are as aggrieved about paying the average annual cost of parking (£47 a year) as they are for paying the average annual cost of fuel (about £1,500).
In reality the higher residential permit costs for high CO2 emitting vehicles is all about nudging car owners to think about less polluting cars. And generally it does seem to work.
Re Greg,
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/a-game-of-zones-sir-peter-hendy-to-leave-tfl/#comment-248947
All well with the HOPS train???
It appears some issues still remain:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b060zvnd
Programme 40minutes long with a few small nuggets.
@Graham H: power is paid for separately by operators, so the incentive you claim, isn’t there
I asked whether there should be an incentive for reducing overall power usage if this reduces the need for power upgrades – not the current “pay for what you use” system which presupposes Network Rail will deliver the power at point of use and has to predict and provide extra capacity if the operators demand it.
I probably shouldn’t have used the word “specification” since these days the Department for Transport see that as being their job, but as your example of vehicle regulations suggests, apparently arcane technical requirements have an enormous impact – almost all major changes to motor vehicles in the last 30 years (reductions in emissions, increases in average fuel economy, ever increasing safety features) have come about as a result of government requirements (albeit more at the European (and US) level than any national legislation). Similarly, trade-offs between power usage, track wear, gauge (switching to 23m vehicles means less weight for a given train length but cost millions in gauge clearance) are very much an issue for Network Rail to have a view on. Apparently GTR have been telling people the Class 700s don’t have tables because otherwise they can’t meet Network Rail’s specification for dwell times as people will take too long getting off, so even interior design is influenced by Network Rail.
Which is also to say, the notion that infrastructure and rolling stock on any railway system can be treated independently of each other is complete nonsense, even if it is nonsense that has been built into the privatised railway structure.
@Malcolm: And yet, it is probably being used partly as a proxy of “owner has money to spare”.
Although this seems unfair on poorer people with old cars, which tend to emit more than new ones. Has any council tried charging for parking by council tax band? I agree on the nudge effects though:
@Quinlet: In reality the higher residential permit costs for high CO2 emitting vehicles is all about nudging car owners to think about less polluting cars.
Hence also the Boris-scrapped policy of charging a higher congestion charge for high-emitting vehicles, which would have neatly resolved the “cheaper to drive than park a bigger car” problem.
“Hence also the Boris-scrapped policy of charging a higher congestion charge for high-emitting vehicles, which would have neatly resolved the “cheaper to drive than park a bigger car” problem.”
Only if you commute into the C-charge zone. Most people who drive to work are doing suburban or orbital trips.
Isn’t there still a 100% discount on the CC for low emission vehicles?
@Ian J – actually, the cost of extra power does provide a (dis)incentive, although for whom is a moot point. In the case of SWT, the not-so-new Siemens stock was designed for a rather more sparkling performance than the power supply allowed but NR couldn’t or wouldn’t pay for the additional capacity required. It is,in fact, a very good example of the discontinuity in industry decision making that you mention, alas.
More generally, I have real intellectual and commercial difficulty with the EU track charging policy that permits infrastructure managers to adjust access charges to reward “greener” power consumption. Logically worked through, that leads to the infrastructure authority not recovering the cost of their operations because they are “subsidising” greener TOCs. Transparency in power charges to TOCs avoids that.
Even more generally, this is what comes of trying to manage the disintegrated industry on the basis of price signals between transactional parties. The sort of holistic trade offs that a rational person would make between different inputs and outcomes is broken at artificial points – power costs versus fares income is one such.
Ian J
Several boroughs exempt “older” cars ( before $_DATE ) presumabky assuming that 90%+ of them will wear out & be scrapped (etc) so they are a diminishing return, not worth bothering with.
I am very happy for this to continue, of course ….
Oh, yes, 100+30 – way back
You should see the ignorant (etc) comments in the Telegraph about Rail (re)-privatisation, if you think the Grauniad’s commenters on Sir Perer H’s move are “interesting” ….
Graham H
Yes, a classic example of: “Oh but the money comes out of a different box, so we can ignore it…”
IIRC didn’t this stymie the extra platform @ Woking for a ridiculously long time, because the quite significant savings were split several ways & it wasn’t “worth” it ???
It was fascinating to listen to the radio programme even though there wasn’t much that readers of this site and the railway press wouldn’t be aware of. One thing that occurred to me, however, was how good TfL has become at generating good news and hence a fund of goodwill to offset the inevitable cock-ups which will happen whilst “performing open heart surgery whilst the patient plays in the Wimbledon final” as Tim O’Toole said on several occasions. The various misfortunes of the SSL re-signalling is an example – nothing like the sustained criticism that the Kings Cross foul up caused yet the costs – however you wish to measure them – are massively more. I think PH’s agenda should be:
– Build bridges with the press
– Forge strong relationships with all the stakeholders – TOCs, FOCs and community groups
– Rebuild the local knowledge base to brief and work with whoever needs to work on the railway so the many local foibles can be understood and project economies made (a recent replacement and re-signalling of a junction at Gainsborough that only served out of use sidings is an example)
– I think this leads to the conclusion that the two divisions – Day to Day Operations/Maintenance and Infrastructure Projects should be more integrated at local level – indeed I’ve heard rumours that this is stating to happen.
On another subject (digression?), I wonder whether the difficulties with negotiating the SWT franchise extension led directly to the end of the “deep alliance”?
Cameron has just confirmed in PMQs that the pause isn’t indefinite.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/618741777055510528
“PM promises there will not be “an indefinite” pause to trans Pennine rail improvements”
@ Ngh – doesn’t mean the work won’t be cancelled altogether though. I can hear a Humpty Dumpty quote from Mr Hewett in the far distance!!
Definition of “indefinite”: lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time.
So if it isn’t indefinite, it has a definite, specified, duration. What is it?
Or don’t they teach them English at Eton now?
@WW – 🙂 You will have noticed, of course, that although the pause is not “indefinite”, there isn’t an actual date for resumption of work (or even Tsiparas-style, a commitment to bring forward such a date) – an interesting statement that may mean the exact opposite of what it says…
HD approves.
Re WW and GH,
I was expecting a comment to come along too.
Re Timbeau,
I would expect 18 months to 2 years.
Even a little time spend pausing on certain things could be highly worth while in getting future cost and schedules back in line for example replacing the piling rigs on the HOPS train with bigger ones that are large enough to handle the piles that turned out to be slightly larger than originally thought in reality might pay dividends on both later bits of the GW work and on the paused MML and TP projects. Or potentially ordering more wagons of certain types on the HOPS train.
One of the contractors has apparently lost “piles” (pun intended) of money on doing the work and apparently may not bid for future work might be adding to the problems.
Last nights radio programme has non appeared in article format:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33425743
HOPS High output plant system, such as for mainline railway electrification that consists of a factory train of 23 railway Multi-Purpose vehicles (MPVs).
@timbeau
There is still a 100% discount for low emission vehicles for the congestion charge but it is not as generous as it was as the definition has been tightened up.
Re Quinlet and Timbeau,
VED is also simplified for new vehicles with just 3 bands with the central band covering 95% of future cars, however there will be different VED rates upon the registration of new vehicles based on their emissions.
VED actually stands for Vehicle Excise Duty – it has had that name since at least 1948 (when the flat rate replaced the “horsepower” rating which by then bore little relation to the actual power of the car (base a tax schedule on assumptions – in this case cylinder bore/stroke ratio and engine speed – , and those assumptions immediately cease to be valid) . The duty only became emissions-based in 2001.
The Road Fund was introduced in 1920 and ceased to be hypothecated from excise duty in 1937. But duty has been payable on “locomotives” since 1888.
[Thank you. I stand corrected. LBM]
quinlet,
Regarding the congestion charge: It was always intended that the 100% discount for low emission vehicles would only apply to the top few percent of low emissions vehicles and this would be a moving target. So as technology improves the barrier gets higher.
As far as I aware, on this basis, it is as generous as it always was.
Clearly this policy has to be in effect otherwise you would probably get to the stage where almost all vehicles would qualify.
TfL has a blog! http://blog.tfl.gov.uk/. Not much on’t yet.
(I fully accept that this comment may be moderated or snipped…)
There’s loads on it! It has been going for two years. Its a blog specifically about their website. This is something we have had a long held desire to cover in an article but no one has got around to it. A obvious opportunity for an aspiring contributor?
I suggest critique, good or bad, be suppressed before we head off in a totally different direction.
@ngh, 8 July: I have just listened to that File on 4 programme. What a tale of woe and it’s not going to get better anytime soon.
[News link that doesn’t advance the discussion removed. LBM]
This is all about the TfL Commssioner’s move to NR (with a few digressions). So anything about TfL is a further digression. However, I can’t think of a better place to put this!
There is short paper on the agenda for 24th September TfL Board meeting which indicates that the new TfL Commissioner might be named on that day.
ORR’s Report on network rail project “issues”
(75 page pdf)
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/19505/enhancements-evidence-report-october-2015.pdf
Lots of very interesting detail (I’m not sure ORR have everything factually right)
Oh I do wish they would get these reports Crystal Marked.
The Shaw review of NR structure and future has just been published:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508101/shaw-report-the-future-shape-and-financing-of-network-rail.pdf
Recommendations
1: Place the needs of passengers and freight shippers at the heart of rail infrastructure management
2: Focus on the customer through deeper route devolution, supported by independent regulation
3: Create a route for the North
4: Clarify the government’s role in the railway and in Network Rail
5: Plan the railway based on customer, passenger and freight needs
6: Explore new ways of paying for the growth in passengers and freight on the railway
7: Develop industry-wide plans to develop skills and improve diversity
So no real surprises…
So no (re-)privatisation of Network Rail, then? *Phew*……
Just some potential partial pseudo options in the style of the infrastructure side of original “Chiltern” franchise deal on privatisation, though they do note that 20 year crystal ball gazing abilities required for this don’t really exist!!!
All of this excludes the £1.8bn Hendy review sell off requirements.
For recommendations 1 & 5, is that to suit the need of the passenger, group etc that complains the loudest or to ensure the benefit for the biggest number of (potential) passengers as shown wonderfully with the Wimbledon loop fiasco?
Re snowy
Seemingly passengers somewhat represented via TOCs.
@ngh – a quite remarkable document -as Bozza might have said “parturient montes nascetur ridiculus mus”* – how little change can you dress up as worth saying? Indeed, DfT gets fingered more than NR: “As the body responsible for transport in England and Wales, the DfT should also develop a visible longer-term strategy for rail travel” (Remember, Ms Shaw is ex-SRA… ) . Even the much-touted idea of concessions to involve the private sector in NR routes has been diluted to urging the routes to find private sources of funding for specific investments.
Perhaps now that’s been got out of the way, everyone can get on with running the railway.
__________________________________________________________________
*The mountains travailed and gave birth to a tiny mouse.
Re Graham H,
Indeed all the normal public NR reporting on upgrades and renewals seems very absent at the moment as this has caused much distraction…
You can have business as usual or change.
@ngh
‘Just some potential partial pseudo options in the style of the infrastructure side of original “Chiltern” franchise deal on privatisation…..’
Are you able to expand upon this further, please?
Re Anonymously,
The 2000 Chiltern franchise renewal included the franchisee sponsoring and managing lots of infrastructure work in return for a long (20 year) franchise. The works being Evergreen 1-3 with the curent Evergreen 3 including the new Marylebone-Bicester-Oxford link and Bicester-Oxford rebuild. The original largest shareholder in the franchisee was the construction firm Laing rather than a transport operator. Plenty of public information on this.
Didn’t the original intention of having the TOC carry out the Evergreen work not work out and Network Rail ended up taking it over? Semper idem, as Boris would say.
Ian J,
For Evergreen 3 at least (the Marylebone – Oxford bit), that was always the exact intention. Chiltern Rail carries out the work. At a price agreed in advance with Network Rail (£250 million I believe) Chiltern does the work and hands it over to Network Rail and pockets the money. Chiltern then pay higher track access charges to pay for the improvements.
The beauty of this idea is that you can avoid the current TOC being unable to recoup reasonably incurred costs. At the end of the franchise it can walk away and the next franchisee gets the benefit but also pays a reasonable sum for the infrastructure upgrade. Highly relevant for this day and age, it means that TOC takes the construction risk not Network Risk. It is basically a “put you money where your mouth is” approach.
I think you are referring to the fact that Network Rail actually did the work because WSAtkins, the original contractor, went bankrupt. I think Network Rail was acting as the contractor for Chiltern Railways. That certainly complicates things but I don’t think that changed the concept.
Caveat: may have got some facts wrong as the situation changed during the implementation of the project.