On Mar 2, 8:07*am, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/I+nee...

Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor London Evening Standard writes
today
quote

BRITAIN'S most senior rail chief has claimed that he needs London's
£16billion Crossrail project "like a hole in the head", a secret
report has revealed.
Network Rail chairman Sir Ian McAllister says the building works for
the capital's new east-west rail line will disrupt services for other
national lines.
But he immediately came under fire today for advocating a "Basil
Fawlty school of customer relations" where providing more trains for
passengers was seen as an inconvenience to those who run the network.
Sir Ian's remarks were laid bare in a new report, obtained by the
Evening Standard, on the systemic weaknesses in state-owned National
Rail.
Crossrail, which will directly link Heathrow to the City and Canary
Wharf, finally won approval from the Government last year after more
than 25 years of delay and deliberation. The scheme is seen as vital
by London's businesses in maintaining the capital's global competitive
edge and in boosting services for commuters.
However, the study by consultants PriceWaterhouseCoopers, reveals that
Sir Ian is deeply sceptical about the Crossrail project and its impact
on his other national services linking major cities to London. One
unnamed senior figure told the report's authors "the chairman told me
that he needs Crossrail like a hole in the head".
It also shows that the Office of the Rail Regulator believes that
Network Rail is "overly focused" on meeting government targets.
"Network Rail is considered to be too risk averse and too focused on
operations rather than capital projects. This approach is believed to
be holding back the development of the railway infrastructure," the
report states.
"As an example of this, a comment was made that Network Rail is
unsupportive of the Crossrail project because of increased risk of
delays and disruption to the network during its construction."
Michael Stephenson, a former Downing Street adviser leading the
campaign to radically change Network Rail to give more power to
passengers, said that it proved the organisation was woefully out of
touch with the public.
Mr Stephenson, general secretary of the Co-operative Party which
sponsors several Labour ministers, said: "The evidence compiled by PWC
for this report, including this astonishing aversion to Crossrail,
reveals an organisation imbued with the Basil Fawlty school of
customer relations - 'this rail system would run much better if it
wasn't for the passengers'."
Network Rail's £20billion debts are guaranteed by the taxpayer.
It was created after the Government nationalised Railtrack, but
critics claim it lacks public accountability.
The report found that the rail operator packs its board with second-
rate non-executive directors.
Network Rail's head of public affairs, Stuart Vernon, warned members
sent copies of the secret report that it was "confidential" and its
contents should not be released.
The report also found that severe disruptions in the West Coast
mainline last year were seen as a "trivial" matter by the
organisation.
unquote

Did we need a leaked PWC report to tell us this? The splushing sound
is Captain Deltic spilling his cocoa.

1. Thank you for posting.

2. This man is clearly in the wrong job. Shouldn't service industries
serve? He probably thinks railways would be much easier to run if
their passengers would just go away.

Any civil engineering project will disrupt. That is the nature of
things.

writes:
Any civil engineering project will disrupt. That is the nature of
things.

There's a lot of rail infrastructure construction going on around here
(Tokyo), and one thing I've noticed is that because of the critical
nature of rail service, they're extremely good at doing major rail
construction without any major service disruptions.

[Sometimes this entails contortions: Elevating one suburban rail line
involved building the new line on top of the old one (with service
continuing as normal of course). Where the old and new lines met, upon
entering a station, the new line split into two elegant curves which
snaked down to meet the old line from the outside (so the final
switchover was a matter of just moving the actual track one night). Now
that the old line has been removed, people must wonder at those odd and
apparently pointless curves... they do look cool though :-]

-Miles

--
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:26:36 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 2, 8:07*am, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/I+nee...

Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor London Evening Standard writes
today
quote

BRITAIN'S most senior rail chief has claimed that he needs London's
£16billion Crossrail project "like a hole in the head", a secret
report has revealed.
Network Rail chairman Sir Ian McAllister says the building works for
the capital's new east-west rail line will disrupt services for other
national lines.
But he immediately came under fire today for advocating a "Basil
Fawlty school of customer relations" where providing more trains for
passengers was seen as an inconvenience to those who run the network.
Sir Ian's remarks were laid bare in a new report, obtained by the
Evening Standard, on the systemic weaknesses in state-owned National
Rail.
Crossrail, which will directly link Heathrow to the City and Canary
Wharf, finally won approval from the Government last year after more
than 25 years of delay and deliberation. The scheme is seen as vital
by London's businesses in maintaining the capital's global competitive
edge and in boosting services for commuters.
However, the study by consultants PriceWaterhouseCoopers, reveals that
Sir Ian is deeply sceptical about the Crossrail project and its impact
on his other national services linking major cities to London. One
unnamed senior figure told the report's authors "the chairman told me
that he needs Crossrail like a hole in the head".
It also shows that the Office of the Rail Regulator believes that
Network Rail is "overly focused" on meeting government targets.
"Network Rail is considered to be too risk averse and too focused on
operations rather than capital projects. This approach is believed to
be holding back the development of the railway infrastructure," the
report states.
"As an example of this, a comment was made that Network Rail is
unsupportive of the Crossrail project because of increased risk of
delays and disruption to the network during its construction."
Michael Stephenson, a former Downing Street adviser leading the
campaign to radically change Network Rail to give more power to
passengers, said that it proved the organisation was woefully out of
touch with the public.
Mr Stephenson, general secretary of the Co-operative Party which
sponsors several Labour ministers, said: "The evidence compiled by PWC
for this report, including this astonishing aversion to Crossrail,
reveals an organisation imbued with the Basil Fawlty school of
customer relations - 'this rail system would run much better if it
wasn't for the passengers'."
Network Rail's £20billion debts are guaranteed by the taxpayer.
It was created after the Government nationalised Railtrack, but
critics claim it lacks public accountability.
The report found that the rail operator packs its board with second-
rate non-executive directors.
Network Rail's head of public affairs, Stuart Vernon, warned members
sent copies of the secret report that it was "confidential" and its
contents should not be released.
The report also found that severe disruptions in the West Coast
mainline last year were seen as a "trivial" matter by the
organisation.
unquote

Did we need a leaked PWC report to tell us this? The splushing sound
is Captain Deltic spilling his cocoa.

1. Thank you for posting.

2. This man is clearly in the wrong job. Shouldn't service industries
serve? He probably thinks railways would be much easier to run if
their passengers would just go away.

Any civil engineering project will disrupt. That is the nature of
things.

From what I have read in various British Publications such as Modern
Railways and Rail, Crossrail as designed may well make existing
services less reliable and reduce freight carrying capacity. Part of
this is related to the priority to be given Crossrail trains on the
mixed service trackage. I also have see much criticism of the idea of
turning back trains at Paddington as well as not going all the way to
Reading. Also I can see the press dumping on Network Rail for delays
that are caused by Crossrail construction that may not be under the
control of Network Rail and calls for penalties for things which
Crossrail has no control over.

On Mar 3, 6:39*am, Clark F Morris wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:26:36 -0800 (PST),
wrote:





On Mar 2, 8:07*am, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/I+nee....

Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor London Evening Standard writes
today
quote

BRITAIN'S most senior rail chief has claimed that he needs London's
£16billion Crossrail project "like a hole in the head", a secret
report has revealed.
Network Rail chairman Sir Ian McAllister says the building works for
the capital's new east-west rail line will disrupt services for other
national lines.
But he immediately came under fire today for advocating a "Basil
Fawlty school of customer relations" where providing more trains for
passengers was seen as an inconvenience to those who run the network.
Sir Ian's remarks were laid bare in a new report, obtained by the
Evening Standard, on the systemic weaknesses in state-owned National
Rail.
Crossrail, which will directly link Heathrow to the City and Canary
Wharf, finally won approval from the Government last year after more
than 25 years of delay and deliberation. The scheme is seen as vital
by London's businesses in maintaining the capital's global competitive
edge and in boosting services for commuters.
However, the study by consultants PriceWaterhouseCoopers, reveals that
Sir Ian is deeply sceptical about the Crossrail project and its impact
on his other national services linking major cities to London. One
unnamed senior figure told the report's authors "the chairman told me
that he needs Crossrail like a hole in the head".
It also shows that the Office of the Rail Regulator believes that
Network Rail is "overly focused" on meeting government targets.
"Network Rail is considered to be too risk averse and too focused on
operations rather than capital projects. This approach is believed to
be holding back the development of the railway infrastructure," the
report states.
"As an example of this, a comment was made that Network Rail is
unsupportive of the Crossrail project because of increased risk of
delays and disruption to the network during its construction."
Michael Stephenson, a former Downing Street adviser leading the
campaign to radically change Network Rail to give more power to
passengers, said that it proved the organisation was woefully out of
touch with the public.
Mr Stephenson, general secretary of the Co-operative Party which
sponsors several Labour ministers, said: "The evidence compiled by PWC
for this report, including this astonishing aversion to Crossrail,
reveals an organisation imbued with the Basil Fawlty school of
customer relations - 'this rail system would run much better if it
wasn't for the passengers'."
Network Rail's £20billion debts are guaranteed by the taxpayer.
It was created after the Government nationalised Railtrack, but
critics claim it lacks public accountability.
The report found that the rail operator packs its board with second-
rate non-executive directors.
Network Rail's head of public affairs, Stuart Vernon, warned members
sent copies of the secret report that it was "confidential" and its
contents should not be released.
The report also found that severe disruptions in the West Coast
mainline last year were seen as a "trivial" matter by the
organisation.
unquote

Did we need a leaked PWC report to tell us this? The splushing sound
is Captain Deltic spilling his cocoa.

1. Thank you for posting.

2. This man is clearly in the wrong job. *Shouldn't service industries
serve? *He probably thinks railways would be much easier to run if
their passengers would just go away.

Any civil engineering project will disrupt. *That is the nature of
things.

From what I have read in various British Publications such as Modern
Railways and Rail, Crossrail as designed may well make existing
services less reliable and reduce freight carrying capacity. *Part of
this is related to the priority to be given Crossrail trains on the
mixed service trackage. *I also have see much criticism of the idea of
turning back trains at Paddington as well as not going all the way to
Reading. *Also I can see the press dumping on Network Rail for delays
that are caused by Crossrail construction that may not be under the
control of Network Rail and calls for penalties for things which
Crossrail has no control over.

The South Eastern branch is not an issue. The Eastern branch would
not be an issue if Crossrail took over all services to Shenfield. It
will be a problem if DfT insist on retaining a service into the
Liverpool Street terminus.

As for the Western portion of Crossrail, this always has been a
confused mess waiting to happen. It would be much simpler in my view
if Crossrail ran to Ealing Broadway and Hammersmith on dedicated
tracks and avoided sharing with Western Region, or whatever it is
called this week.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, wrote:

On Mar 3, 6:39*am, Clark F Morris wrote:

From what I have read in various British Publications such as Modern
Railways and Rail, Crossrail as designed may well make existing
services less reliable and reduce freight carrying capacity. *Part of
this is related to the priority to be given Crossrail trains on the
mixed service trackage.

The South Eastern branch is not an issue. The Eastern branch would not
be an issue if Crossrail took over all services to Shenfield. It will
be a problem if DfT insist on retaining a service into the Liverpool
Street terminus.

"if DfT insist"? You say that as if not decreasing capacity on that line
was some sort of bizarre and arbitrary folly.

As for the Western portion of Crossrail, this always has been a confused
mess waiting to happen. It would be much simpler in my view if
Crossrail ran to Ealing Broadway and Hammersmith on dedicated tracks and
avoided sharing with Western Region, or whatever it is called this week.

It will have dedicated tracks in the west, won't it? I admit i'm hazy
here.

tom

--
Why did one straw break the camel's back? Here's the secret: the million
other straws underneath it - it's all mathematics. -- Mos Def

On Mar 3, 12:39*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:39*am, Clark F Morris wrote:

From what I have read in various British Publications such as Modern
Railways and Rail, Crossrail as designed may well make existing
services less reliable and reduce freight carrying capacity. *Part of
this is related to the priority to be given Crossrail trains on the
mixed service trackage.

The South Eastern branch is not an issue. *The Eastern branch would not
be an issue if Crossrail took over all services to Shenfield. *It will
be a problem if DfT insist on retaining a service into the Liverpool
Street terminus.

"if DfT insist"? You say that as if not decreasing capacity on that line
was some sort of bizarre and arbitrary folly.

As for the Western portion of Crossrail, this always has been a confused
mess waiting to happen. *It would be much simpler in my view if
Crossrail ran to Ealing Broadway and Hammersmith on dedicated tracks and
avoided sharing with Western Region, or whatever it is called this week..

It will have dedicated tracks in the west, won't it? I admit i'm hazy
here.

14tph will be turned back from newly constructed platforms at
Paddington. The remainder will share WR tracks with Intercity, local
and freight trains as far as Maidenhead. This will guarantee service
pollution.

IMHO It is still essential for London's future that Crossrail is
constructed.

wrote:
It will have dedicated tracks in the west, won't it? I admit i'm hazy
here.

14tph will be turned back from newly constructed platforms at
Paddington. The remainder will share WR tracks with Intercity, local
and freight trains as far as Maidenhead. This will guarantee service
pollution.

The Intercity trains will remain on the fast lines so ought to be
unaffected. There are only 4 Crossrail tph 'extra' to Maidenhead to be
fitted in, 2 terminate at West Drayton in a non-conflicting reversing
platform, and 4 take over Heathrow Connect, with a new flyover junction to
avoid crossing movements. There is an additional relief line going in for
some of the route as well. The 14 tph that turnback will not go on the GWML.

Shouldn't be too complex a problem really, I doubt they will be anywhere
near capacity once it is all resignalled.

Paul

Clark F Morris wrote:

.....Also I can see the press dumping on Network Rail for delays
that are caused by Crossrail construction that may not be under the
control of Network Rail and calls for penalties for things which
Crossrail has no control over.

I don't think the work on the existing network is outside NR control, it has
been delegated to Network Rail to organise, with a £2.5 billion slice of the
budget being allocated.

Paul