Again and again

Another month, and regular as clockwork another major scheme hits problems and generates more excuses. This time it is Manchester-Preston electrification and a delay to a delay. Network Rail couldn’t meet the original six years programme, and have impressively managed another delay of a year in just two years since the Hendy Review ‘reset’ the project.
Less impressive are the excuses, which are ‘ground conditions’ and ‘uncharted mining sites’. Let us be clear, it is not the fault of the ground. The ground is just there: you can put a pile in almost anything, or redesign around it if you know what you are dealing with. It may cost a bit more, but it shouldn’t delay the programme.
That’s why you do a site investigation (SI). If it really is true that (as reported in Modern Railways) that 3 out of 10 foundations were initially unsuccessful, either the SI was seriously deficient, or it was ignored or wrongly interpreted, or follow-up surveys were not carried out as the design was finalised. I’ve been involved with rail projects and SIs in the same geological area and find it hard to believe the claim that ground conditions were so different within ‘half a metre of the surveys’ unless the survey (or its interpretation) was defective, structures were totally different to those originally envisaged, or someone just made a series of mistakes. As for mining, activity in this part of the Lancashire Coalfield ceased early, well before the 21st Century; mining for most of the 20th century is well-documented and older unrecorded workings near the railway will have settled by now. I know because I’ve used the records for other schemes. In any case, the depth of piling for electrification masts should not cause a significant risk.
Network Rail also claim that running sand and water slowed progress, but how did these come as a surprise? The same conditions were encountered (and caused delays) when the Farnworth Tunnels were re-bored in 2015 for the same electrification project. How was it possible that the lessons that should have been learnt just two years ago on the same project had been forgotten so quickly?
All this points to project management failure on a epic scale. Again. The lack of notice to operators about the delays to the scheme suggests that internal project control was, and almost certainly still is completely ineffective. The use of seasons in Network Rail’s suggestion that work can be completed by ‘’late summer or early autumn’ should not fill anyone with confidence that the programme is under control and there will not be further delays. Everyone thought and hoped that Hendy would bring a new rigour and competence, but this certainly hasn’t happened yet. What a shambles.

Network Rail get it wrong again

I am going to scream if I ever see the planning system blamed again for delays and cost increases to GW electrification. In November 2017 Modern Railways carried an article about rebuilding a bridge to allow electrification, and suggested that ‘obtaining planning consents has been a major drag on the process’. A standard ‘bureaucracy gets in the way of modernisation’ story?

But hang on a minute! The bridge in question at Steventon was listed in 1988, and electrification was authorised in 2009, so why has the need for Listed Building Consent come as such a surprise?

As a chartered planner I am exasperated. I’ve worked in rail and light rail for several decades and regularly deal with planning applications, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and landscape designations. The range of planning consents and the time and effort needed to get them has barely changed in my time in the profession. British town planning is a permissive system that needs consultation, negotiation, and balancing of different interests. Local and national town planners are aware of the needs of the rail industry, want to encourage investment, and compromise is usually possible.

A good example is the elegant OHLE design achieved for the Royal Border Bridge at Berwick. This is a very historic structure (Grade I listed – the highest possible, and much higher level of protection that Steventon) in an historically important but windy setting. Lengthy and sometimes difficult negotiations were needed between British Rail and the Royal Fine Arts Commission and other stakeholders, but a solution was negotiated. ECML electrification went ahead on time and budget and the results look good.

Contrast this with OHLE installed between Reading and Didcot through the statutory North Wessex Downs and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Despite the legal requirement for Network Rail to ‘have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB’, and a 2013 commitment to consult the AONB Board over OHLE design, Network Rail ploughed ahead with some of the most horrendous structures imaginable. This has created predictable outrage and Network Rail have had to commit to review the design. The result is terrible for everyone. Either tens of millions of pounds will be wasted replacing OHLE, or the AONB will be blighted for ever. And we haven’t even mentioned the lack of sensitivity, panic and consequent ill-feeling over electrification through Bath.

What has changed since East Coast electrification seems to be the skills, attitude and project planning competence of our atomised rail industry. Leaving aside the arrogance of relying on Permitted Development Rights for electrification, all the town planning consents needed were predictable. They could and should have been programmed in when GW electrification was approved in 2009. Yet unbelievably and unforgivably, eight years later, Steventon Bridge still doesn’t have a planning solution, let alone a Listed Building Consent. I despair.