INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview March 2011
This month’s Informed Sources is pretty well guaranteed to get you spluttering over the cornflakes in disbelief. Think I’m exaggerating? Well, how do you fancy Network Rail being split up into regions, some of which are sold off to the private sector? Or £27 million for consultancy on IEP?
Railway restructuring – McNulty genuinely radical
Horizontal separation in practice
IEP procurement costs reach £27 million
IEP a ‘done deal’ but when?
More on discontinuous electrification
Captain Deltic’s Traction & Rolling Stock round-up
Sir Roy McNulty’s Rail Value for Money study has commissioned supporting work from a number of consultancies covering various aspects of his broad remit. This month’s column reports on the study into industry restructuring being carried out by LEK which complements DfT’s own work on franchise reform.
Under its new management Network Rail is committed to replacing the strong centralisation imposed by former Chief Executive Iain Coucher, with a structure which devolves greater autonomy to its nine Route Directors. But where Network Rail sees the Regional structure as a means of getting closer to its customers, LEK is more excited about the ability this ‘Horizontal Separation’ (HS) gives the Office of Rail Regulation to benchmark performance between Regions, each having their own set of accounts. Such ‘Comparative Regulation’ should be more effective at driving efficiency improvements than regulation of a single large business.
But LEK argues that Regional managements would be under even more pressure to drive down costs if some of the Network Rail regions were sold off to the private sector. These Regional Infrastructure Managers (RIM) would become mini-Railtracks.
Integration
Once Horizontally Separated RIMs are in place, Vertical Integration (VI) is possible, with a
There’s a choice of ‘Operations VI’ and ‘Full VI’. Operations VI would see the
Alignment
Then there’s Vertical Alignment (VA) where a joint venture of Network Rail and the dominant
Central services.
Not surprisingly, long distance passenger and freight operators are not delighted by the prospect of dealing with a number of independently owned RIMs. However, certain network wide functions would remain within a central system authority. Obvious examples include timetabling, planning, capacity allocation and possessions management.
LEK’s study emphasises that in a complex, safety critical system structural change should be an evolutionary process. And with such a major change there will inevitably be ‘significant uncertainties’ surrounding the end result, despite the best planning. Shortcomings in the new contractual frameworks and business processes are ‘highly likely’, with adjustments to the new framework needed to overcome unintended consequences.
Practical application
Assuming the benefits of independently owned RIMs over a Horizontally Separated Network Rail exceed the costs of setting them up, then the next stage would be to test the market. The choice is between offering a concessions or an outright asset sale.
On balance LEK comes down in favour of a concession, largely on political grounds. It argues that a concession would be easier to handle in the event of failure, would be politically less sensitive and would allow a future move to a more radical solution if restructuring is a success. If it isn’t, a concession would be easier to unwind.
There’s some interesting analysis of which RIMs and TOCs make the best fit.
£27 million to reinvent the Voyager
A recent written Parliamentary answer revealed that DfT’s total consultancy costs in connection with the Intercity Express Programme have reached £26.971 million since the project started in 2005. When Agility Trains, the
Another £12 million going down the pan in two years is a reminder of the massive re-specification and re-design that has been going on. This has seen the bi-mode IEP turned into an underfloor engined Diesel Electric Multiple Unit.
Does this sound familiar? Yes, indeed, DfT’s £27 million has created a Class 22X Voyager/Meridian clone.
But, don’t forget that the total cost of IEP procurement includes the bidding costs of the consortia and their sub-contractors. Add in the on-going re-design work and it comes to just short of £70 million. An investigation of IEP by the National Audit Office is long overdue
IEP a ‘done deal’.
Various Informed Sources have been telling me for some time that IEP is a ‘done deal’. However, the scope and timing of the project is linked to Phase 2 of the Great Western Main line electrification, so commercial close may still some way off.
On the GWML electrification the big issue is whether the wires stop at
If
In this scenario, upgraded IC125 High Speed Trains would continue to operate West of England services, at least until the Midland Main Line electrification released Meridian DEMUs. These could be converted to bi-mode operation with an additional pantograph/transformer car enabling all Great Western Passengers to ride on top of a diesel engine.
Economy options
However, Network Rail is not giving up Wales without a fight. Cost saving options include wiring only the fast lines, at least to
A more creative approach would be to link early electrification of the
Discontinuous electrification – for bridges?
In last month’s roughing up of the consultation document on the next Rail Technical Strategy I highlighted discontinuous electrification as a classic nonsense. This would involve fitting electric trains with power storage equipment to avoid the cost of electrifying tunnels.
Truly bonkers, especially if you are trying to improve whole system reliability. And, in the real world providing the necessary overhead electrical clearances in tunnels is rarely an issue.
But electrical clearances at bridges can be a cost issue. For example the Midland Main Line has around 200 bridges and while in many cases you can find the clearance by lowering the ballast level in some case you are looking at major civils work.
As a result, a version of discontinuous electrification is being considered for the handful of bridges where providing clearance would be very costly. The idea is to install conventional neutral sections under these bridges, allowing the wire height to be lowered
Prime target for this treatment is the road bridge carrying the A6 trunk road over the MML south of Leicester Station. Clearances are already low and lifting the bridge deck would be difficult and costly because it incorporates a number of utilities. Closure of a major would result in severe traffic disruption.
Mind you, it would still be a bodge. And the station and bridge are ripe for redevelopment.
Traction & Rolling Stock up-dates
Bombardier and Siemens submitted what should be their final revised offers for the Thameslink train fleet on 24 January 24. This was in response to the fifth Supplementary Instruction which reflected changes to the project following authorisation of Thameslink Key Output 2 under last year’s Comprehensive Spending Review.
DfT Rail’s procurement team is reported to be confident that the preferred bidder will be selected by March 31 this year. April or early May as more realistic. Financial close is targeted by October 31.
Teething problems with the ScotRail Siemens Class 380 Electric Multiple Units were down to weight saving. A change to the main transformer saved around 1 tonne but increased the demand on the Auxiliary Converter Unit (
However the new ACU was designed to European Electro-Magnetic Compatibility standards which are less stringent than those applied by Network Rail. Initially it was thought that this could be solved by re-writing the
Expressions of interest to build the new Crossrail train fleet were submitted on 7 February. Invitations to Negotiate will be issued ‘later this year’, when the procurement process and timetable will be confirmed. Contract award is currently expected in ‘late 2013’. How vague is that?
Meanwhile the big news is that class number 345 has been registered with the National Rolling Stock Library for the new train. Crossrail says it was important to differentiate the new Crossrail fleet from that proposed by British Rail for its the 1990s scheme which was designated Class 341.
Roger’s Blog
My quiet spell ended with the Golden Whistles at the January Fourth Friday Club meeting. This was a great success for Tony Miles and the IRO. It seems that our lunchtime awards ceremonies, with the winners determined by the cold numbers, have struck a chord with the industry. Can we add the ‘golden Pandrol clip to complete the portfolio?
February began with a briefing on what I still call the B5000 bogie with my old chum Eddy Searancke of Bombardier. Much waffle is talked about innovation in the railway industry, but this bogie is a genuine example, Eddy reminded me that we were coming up to the 20th anniversary of the launch at
The following week I made a rare foray into politics and had a get-to-know-you session with MP Steve Baker. Despite being newly elected, Steve is already on the Transport Select Committee. And he is an engineer by training. With Tom Harris also on the Committee we should get more light as well as heat.
Last week was research focused. On Tuesday I went in to see Andy Doherty, Network Rail’s Director Railway Systems and Vehicle Engineering, to talk about the company’s research and development activities. It was a fascinating session, including background to the development of a modification which will make even Desiros track friendly.
On the Thursday it was off to the IMechE Railway Division Seminar on ‘Trains & Systems for Sustainable Railways’. Two of the presentations were on topics covered by the Rail Technical Strategy featured in last month’s column. It was a fun day – well I thought so.
I’m off to
If it’s the first Friday in March it must be the Railway Division annual lunch. Pressure of work means I have had to miss this premier event for a coupe of years, so I’m looking forward to enjoying the unique atmosphere as a guest of
March is pretty quiet at the moment, which is perhaps a good thing as I will need some days at the desk to get ahead of my writing with a holiday coming up in early April.
Consultation time again
Meanwhile yet another Research Strategy document has come out for consultation. This one is the Second Rail Industry Research Strategy and has been prepared for DfT by consultants TRL. I consider it to be even worse than the RTS document which left me underwhelmed as you all know. Here’s the link so you can judge for yourselves.
http://www.trl.co.uk/transport_consultancy/rail/the_second_rail_industry_research_strategy_rirs2/
That’s all for now.
Roger