Alan Price
Director, Railway Planning and Performance
Telephone 020 7282 3825
alan.price@orr.gsi.gov.uk
Paul Plummer
Network Rail
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9AG
12 September 2014
Dear Paul,
Enhancements Costs Adjustment Mechanism (ECAM)
W001a Great Western Electrification Programme (GWeP), Route Sections 1 - 9
I am writing to you following ORR’s review of the above enhancement project as part
of the ECAM process which we set out in our Final Determination.
ORR has considered the project submission, received on 21/07/14, and the further
information you have supplied during the period May – August 2014. We have
concluded that the efficient level of funding is an AFC of £1649.1m spanning CP4
and CP5 with a CP5 component of £1343.7m. This compares to your originally
submitted AFC of £1528.6m (all costs in 4Q12 prices).
This represents the level of efficient expenditure for this project that we will assume
as we build up the portfolio baseline for CP5 enhancements. We aim to conclude this
baseline as soon as possible so that Network Rail has the certainty to deliver its
obligations within a defined funding envelope. Projects included in the portfolio to be
treated in this way are listed in Annex E of our final determinations.
Particular points we would like to make about this submission are as follows: In the submission, the opportunities register was not as well developed as the
risk register. We consider that the efficiencies in this letter are a reasonable
assumption of the possible opportunities yet to be identified by the project team.
To realise these savings Network Rail needs to implement stronger governance
Page 1 of 17
10791241
around cost control and value management. The principal cost savings we have
assumed are as follows:

further cost reductions in achieving OLE clearance at structures, where
there are still many pre-GRIP3 options assumed and costed. We are also
concerned that clearance work may be progressing that is not absolutely
necessary and hence we request that you review upcoming works as a
matter of urgency. We do not however have sufficient information to make
a judgement on any further saving from the Schedule 4 reduction that could
arise from cancelling possession-hungry structures work.

reducing the OLE specification on parts of the route with line speeds of less
than 125pmh, rather than installing Series 1 OLE as currently priced.
Decisions on this are urgently required to maintain the schedule and to
realise these savings whilst avoiding the installation of over-specified OLE
system

bettering the productivity rates that have been used in the cost estimate for
high output installation of masts and piled foundations, the current
production rates are significantly behind what was envisaged for the HOPS.
 minimising the need for temporary bridge provision, as this is the largest
single risk in the project
 Since the date of the ECAM submission, further opportunities for reducing costs
have arisen, but we have not taken them into account because we consider they
may impact the project outputs. These changes to outputs can be dealt with
under the usual change control arrangements, whereby if agreed with
stakeholders, the output will be amended in the delivery plan, and the funding
adjusted accordingly. These include:

the Wentloog to Cardiff independent feeders which if deleted might have a
performance impact on the mainline. There is an option to wholly or partfund this through the Welsh Valley Lines electrification project. This saving
has not been included in this ECAM determination for GWEp, as a full
impact assessment on the outputs in terms of performance and schedule
has not been undertaken. We feel this is not a true efficiency, but a
movement of cost form one project to another.

the wiring of only two of the four tracks west of Newport is an opportunity to
reduce the output and costs accordingly, but needs to be properly
assessed and instructed by DfT as a change to outputs in the delivery plan
 The installation of main feeder fixed earthing devices (FEDs) has been included
in this cost assessment, but the business case for intermediate FEDs did not
support the additional £50m expenditure required, and so has been excluded
following full consultation with our safety colleagues
 The funding of the bulk power supply point at Bramley (or the alternative solution
at Didcot) was not included in this ECAM submission and we have not included
any costs for this. However it may be required in future to achieve great western
mainline performance requirements and so we expect it to be part of a separate
Page 2 of 17
10791241
ECAM submission in due course, noting that there are already risks that it may
not be delivered on time.
 This ECAM determination is based around the Fundamental Outputs statement
for the project, issued by you on 24th July 2014, and attached to this letter to
provide clarity on the outputs funded at a more detailed level than the Delivery
Plan
As you know, we have not yet agreed the size of any portfolio adjustment to take
account of the benefits of aggregating project risks into a portfolio. We used a figure
of -3.05% in the PR13 Final Determinations, but need to have further meetings with
you on this issue.
In reaching our conclusions we have looked for evidence that the estimated costs
represent efficient expenditure, and have also used our broader criteria that we set
out in paragraph 9.66 in the Final Determination. We have summarised our findings
in the following pages to this letter, and have also included your draft Delivery Plan
entry and your Fundamental Outputs statement to be clear on the scope and outputs
that we have assessed this submission against.
Yours sincerely
Alan Price
Director, Railway Planning and Performance
Page 3 of 17
10791241
Cost Adjustment Summary (all costs in 4Q12)
£m, 12/13 prices SBP Final Dets ECAM (Coversheet v11) ORR adjusted CP4 * 15/16
16/17
17/18
CP5 *
*
CP6 AFC
305.00 236.21 939.80 342.14
305.39 207.63 826.08 300.75
10.49
9.23
nil
nil
1528.64 1343.69 nil nil 1833.64
1649.08
* 13/14
14/15
* * * costs for this scheme were not specified in the SBP or FDs in comparable terms of route sections to be
electrified, scope or outputs
Category
Omissions &
adjustments
Reason
Omitted scope post ECAM and associated ORR unit rate
adjustments
Correction of cost base errors in ECAM coversheet - (CP4 sunk
costs and Schedule 4)
Reallocation of incorrectly allocated costs
Cost base
Unchanged. Already in 12/13 prices.
Direct costs
P&D: Removal of costs for intermediate FEDs
OLE: Reduced specification OLE system for lower speed routes
General: Rate adjustments where high unit rates not justified,
brought back to benchmarks
Indirect costs
Risk
Efficiency
Amendments to project management costs to match PR13
benchmark; removal of misallocated items
Reduction in risk allowance for temporary bridges and slab track
in tunnels.
Increased likelihood of additional costs at Bridge Street Newport
Removal of risk for items now included in scope (Shrivenham,
Goring and Tilehurst).
Removal/amendments to FED risks following removal of
intermediate FEDS from scope
Overall – adoption of NR ECAM Opportunity schedule at P20
amended as follows:
Signalling - inclusion of opportunity to reduce net risks from 32%
to 20%
Civils - Amendments to specific civil opportunity probability and
values; inclusion of an additional opportunity allowance to reflect
on-going drive to reduce clearance works to the minimum
necessary
P&D - Removal of intermediate FED opportunities as now
removed from scope (to avoid double counting)
OLE – Inclusion of additional Opportunity to achieve improved
production rates and reduce net risk to go to 17%
Total of all changes (subject to rounding)
Page 4 of 17
Change to CP5
(£m)
7.5
0.0
-76.8
-11.5
-21.5
-82.4
-184.9
10791241
Assurance record for W001a Great Western Electrification
Cost (4Q12) Commentary on whether costs are fully justified and efficient We have concluded that the efficient cost for the CP5 works is £1343.7m, coupled with the sunk CP4 costs of £305.4m this gives an AFC of £ 1649.1m. This figure includes the additional Schedule 4 costs for the higher CP5 rates. Output, Scope and Milestones Outputs, scope and milestones are clearly defined in Delivery Plan and are consistent with the HLOS The project completion milestones have been added into the Delivery Plan as NR’s regulatory outputs. This has yet to go through formal change control with stakeholders and funders, but represents the outputs that have been priced in this ECAM. The requirements have been stated at a more detailed level in the attached Fundamental Outputs Statement.
Business case and Value for Money
If costs significantly higher than assumed in the Final Determination do government still support the project? DfT have been working closely with NR in reviewing the higher emerging costs for this project since April 2014. The original business case (held by DfT) is being updated. Any changes to outputs following this ECAM determination will be dealt with under the existing regulatory change control process. Operator buy‐in Evidence of operator buy‐in to the selected option Regular meetings are held with TOCs who are involved in the programme governance arrangements. Additional fGW staff are directly employed in the project assisting with Entry into Service activities and future operations planning. Authorisations Defined strategy on compliance with Interoperability TSI’s and other relevant statutory provisions Interoperability compliance strategy has been submitted. The project has declared it will comply with Energy TSI and PRM TSI Page 5 of 17
10791241
Network Rail
7
Great Western Electrification Maidenhead to: Oxford, Newbury, Bristol and Cardiff Fundamental Outputs This document addresses the specific ORR question re outputs delivered by GWEp and
should be read in conjunction with the requirements Document Hierarchy diagram and
GWRM Requirements Structure. See Appendices A and B
Summary of fundamental outputs that are being delivered by GWEp
The fundamental outputs being delivered support, and are compliant with, the final draft DfT
Outcomes Requirements 12/06/2014 and its approved appendix D – Infrastructure Output
Specification 07/05/2014. This document is approved for reference in this GWEp
submission in correspondence from Stuart Baker 15 July 2014. In that final draft, the date of
electrifying the Dr Day’s to Filton Abbey Wood section is however incorrectly stated as being
by May 2017. This will be commented back to the DfT but for clarity here - this section will
be electrified for service by December 2017 following completion of the four-tracking works
in August 2017. This will be in time for the electric-only Class 801 Hitachi SET cascade in
2018.
Lines to be electrified
Line to be wired diagram is as per the Client remit: WN-Elect-100.5, 21 April 2010
An additional output is to electrify all four tracks of Dr Days to Filton Abbey Wood Capacity
Improvements (W007) (otherwise excluded from the ECAM settlement for W007) as agreed
with DfT in 2009 see DfT outcomes’ Requirements 12/06/2014 [section 2.1.h]
Line speeds achieved
System line speed diagram – Sponsor instruction update, agreed at RSPG, shared with DfT.
Version 2.4i, 22 July 2014. Appendix C
Electrical and Structural Clearances achieved
Where interventions are undertaken “normal” clearances are achieved; as listed in the PRS.
Clearances are defined in GE/RT8025 The project has followed the NR internal process (TIF33) to determine clearances at structures, with the aim of significantly improving the frequency of flashover outages.
Peer-reviewed exceptions have been agreed where reduced clearances are better WLC. GWEp provides electrical clearances only, it does not provide for the IEP train clearances.
Network Rail
Trains types/ modelling input assumptions
The electrification is being designed for the SET types 800 and 801 (5/9/10-car 2-pan
operation) and the cascaded EMU stock (up to 12-car {3x4-car} and 3-pan operation).
DfT outcome requirements letter July 2014: 2.2. Network Rail is funded in CP5 to deliver performance at a level of 92.5% PPM by the
end of CP5
2.3. From December 2017 onwards a key requirement of the Department is for the route to
be capable of achieving the following journey times, based on IEP trains:
Route
Paddington – Bristol Temple
Meads
Calling
Via and calling at Bristol Parkway only
Time (min)
82
Paddington – Bristol Temple
Meads
Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath
Spa
93
Paddington - Swansea
Reading, Newport, Cardiff (104 min), Bridgend,
Port Talbot, Neath
Reading, Oxford (49 min) and six more
stations
Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Kemble, Stroud,
Stonehouse
158
Paddington – Worcester
Shrub Hill
Paddington - Gloucester
126
100
Delivery Plan statement on outputs: The electrification of the GWML facilitates the introduction of electric train operation delivering significant journey
time improvements on key intercity routes and high seating capacity trains on suburban services contributing to
the delivery of the HLOS capacity metric for London Paddington by 2019.
 2tph to Bristol sees DMU replaced by EMU.
 4tph IEP replaces HST into Bristol.  9tph IEP replaces HST into Paddington.
Line speed diagram (3pan-2pan divide) Appx C
Client remit – train service specification issues DfT Oct 2009
Line capacity (traction capacity)
No infrastructure alterations are being undertaken by the project to enhance network
capacity. The capacity of the traction supply has been designed to accommodate all realistic
anticipated growth.
The Traction Power Supply Strategy has used the following service pattern to model the
power requirements and to help create the Major Feeder Diagram. The Traction Power
Supply Strategy has informed the Major Feeder Diagram, which has sufficient capacity to
feed all reasonably anticipated growth scenarios.
Network Rail
Power Supply Outage Scenario – timetable achieved
The Traction Power Supply Strategy is designed on the principle of single outage redundancy i.e. if any one bulk supply point is totally lost, the remaining system will be able to continue to function without any loss of train service. Each bulk supply is dual redundant and therefore any single equipment failure results in no loss of service. Note that the Bulk Supply Point and associated feeder will not be available until 2018 and this arrangement is somewhat compromised until that date. The AT feeder system has the inherent advantage of being non-directional and the MFD has
been designed so that so far as is practicable dewirement on any 2-track section will not isolate any area of railway.
Independent feeds are taken to Reading Depot from the Reading SATS. There is no contingent service TT for total loss of power, as no EMU service would run. Some (dual-mode) Class 800 SET could run on diesel power to complete their journey. Reliance on other projects (delivery dependence)
Crossrail – deliver Slough and Langley loops
Reading (RSAR) – Reading Area - delivery of OLE (foundations/main steel) and Reading
depot - all
Oxford corridor – revised siding layout for stabling EMUs, revised layout generally
Western Mainline Signalling Renewals (WMSR) programme
Immunisation of the signalling and telecoms systems (accelerated renewal, signalling equipment
changes, electrical clearance on signalling structures and signal sighting issues)
Delivery of the SCADA Fibre and RSC cables
Delivery of defined parts of the earthing and bonding of equipment
Bristol Area Signalling Renewals and Enhancements – Stoke Gifford depot connections
Stoke Gifford depot (Agility Trains) – transition into the depot, power calcs
Dr Days to Filton Abbey Wood capacity Enhancement (Filton Bank 4-tracking) – delivery
of foundations, main steel, route clearance
Severn Tunnel junction AfA – provision of compliant footbridge at Severn Tunnel junction
(subject to change control approval)
National Grid – provide bulk supply points
National Utilities – move their services (not part of the ECAM financial scope but required
to deliver the Regulated Output dates)
Network Rail
National SCADA renewals project – Provision of the SCADA control system and
equipment to monitor and control the electrified railway. Integration Protection and Control
utilises the dedicated fibre optic cable with full diversity between distribution sites, connected
to Fixed Telecoms Network (FTN) nodes for communication with the Electrical Operations
Control Centre (EOCC)
Reliance on other projects (Interfaces)
Crossrail – transition at Maidenhead
Hinksey flood mitigation – track raising
Oxford corridor – Provision of revised layout to be wired
TSI compliance
The PRS mandates the TSI compliance required see section 2.4
“The route between London and Cardiff is classified as TENS, High Speed and is further
classified as:
Category II – specifically upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200
km/h.
Category III – specifically upgraded high-speed lines or lines specially built for high speed,
which have special features as a result of topographical or environmental, relief or town planning
constraints, on which speed must be adapted individually.
“Power supply and OLE shall be compliant with the High Speed Energy TSI (or equivalent
Energy TSI as may be officially published within the lifecycle of the project) taking into
account the particular features of the British network as permitted by Specific Case; clause
7.4.6. of the HS ENE TSI.
118049 PRS – 1009
The project has published its Authorisation Plan for Interoperability and has appointed NoBo
and DeBo as required by the Interoperability regulations. The costs of TSI compliance form
part of this ECAM submission.
National Rules compliance
The PRS mandates the company standards and national rules that apply vis: The following are mandatory requirements:
 European and National Legislation (e.g. Electricity at Work Regulations 1989)
 Railway Group Standards
 Network Rail company standards
 Network Rail asset and environmental policies
 The requirements of the Project Requirements Specification
 The requirements of applicable temporary non compliances pending standard
change for Group and Company Standards
 BS EN 50126:1999, Railway Applications. The specification and demonstration of
reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS), covering validation and
verification.
 British and European standards where referenced within Technical Specifications for
Interoperability or in Railway Group Standards. 118049 PRS - 2649
Active Provisions for future growth
Active provision is being made in the Power and Distribution system to accommodate the
anticipated power requirements of the following scope:
Welsh Valley Lines (bulk supply at St. Brides)
Cardiff to Swansea electrification
Electric Spine (AT transformer at Oxford and AT to Oxford from Didcot)
Provision of “space and base” for AT supply Basingstoke to Newbury for
electrification beyond Newbury
Sponsor Instruction – Issue 1.8 GRIP4-8 12th July 2012 sections 9.1.4 and 9.1.5
Network Rail
9.1.4 One of the clear objectives of the establishment of the Network Electrification Programme
was to make the case for, and begin the implementation of, a rolling programme of
electrification. Consequently, all actions of the project must be consistent with a[national]
programme of electrification, including future schemes. This would include all works for both
physical clearance and electrical immunisation. In addition, it is proposed that, as part of
electrification reconstruction works on routes proposed for gauge clearance in the Freight
RUS and the Strategic Freight Network, opportunities should be taken from more efficient
delivery through the integration of relevant works.
9.1.5 In addition to GWML electrification, there are also a number of other electrification projects
underway across the network. The programme team is to liaise with the other electrification
programme teams to develop nationally-required products (e.g. plant strategy) and for the
sharing of best practice and application of new technology / engineering initiatives.
DfT Outcome requirements section 3.4c i.e.
Bristol-Birmingham (i.e. design of connections at Westerleigh).
Oxford – Coventry (AT transformer at Oxford)
Oxford - Bedford (AT transformer at Oxford)
Immunisation of additional interlockings where the residual interlocking would otherwise not
be a viable project as per John Larkinson 28/09/2011 in the accelerated renewals
agreement.
“
Passive provisions for future growth
Passive provision is being made in the Power and Distribution system for the following:
Conversion to AT Operation for Reading to Newbury
Independent supply for Thingley to Bathampton
Additional distribution site for Westerleigh to Birmingham
Additional distribution site for Swindon to Kemble line
Additional distribution site for Berks and Hants line beyond Newbury
Maintenance Provision –Initial/Strategic Spares Provision
Training Provision
A training establishment will be built at Cocklebury to train the additional 113 staff
required for maintain the OLE.
OLE maintenance facilities
The project will construct maintenance facilities at London, Reading, Didcot, Bristol,
Wales
Operational Control
Controlled from Western ROC Didcot as per NR central strategy but can be controlled from
any ECO in the country should the technical need arise.
Other significant issues:PRM provision
The equal opportunities legislation [Equality Act 2010] appears to place a requirement
on NR to provide access so far as is reasonable at rural foot bridges (i.e. lifts and/or
ramps). In a response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission July 2014 we will
Network Rail
state that “NR … is committed as an organisation to improving our facilities for disabled people and will make adjustments provided there is a reasonable case for doing so”.
EU Legislative requirement at stations is covered by PRM TSI 200 Network Rail
Appendix A
Great West
Western Ele
Elecctrifica
trificattion – Do
Document Hier
Hierarchy Rou
Route Se
Sect
ctions
ions 1 – 9 ECAM
ECAM
HLOS
DfT Outcome
DfT Outcome
Requirements
DfT Business Case
DfT Business Case
Infrastructure Output Specification
Infrastructure
Output Specification
(Appendix D
(Appendix
D ‐‐ 07/05/2014)
Department for Transport
Network Rail
CP5 Delivery Plan
CP5 Delivery Plan
W001a
Great Western
Great Western
RUS
Stakeholder
Stakeholder’s
’s
Consultation
Change Control
Change Control
Western Route Output Spec.
Western
Route Output Spec.
NR Client Remit
NR Client Remit
Electrification
RUS
(06/03/2014)
Lines to be Wired Diagram
Lines to be Wired Diagram
(Appendix)
Great Western Route Modernisation
Great Western Route Modernisation
Programme Requirements
Programme Requirements
NR Sponsor Instruction
NR Sponsor Instruction
Traction Power
Power
Traction
Supply Strategy
Strategy
Supply
PRS
System Linespeeds
System Linespeeds
Major Feeding
Major Feeding
Diagram
Route Schematics
Route Schematics
Route
Route Clearance
Clearance
In
Inclu
clud
des
es::
•Trrack Lo
•T
Low
wer
•Civ
ivils
ils
•Can
•C
anop
opiies
•Veeg, Sc
•V
Scrrap & RRAPs
Network Rail
Overhead Line
Overhead Line
Equipment
Incl
In
clud
udes
es::
•HOPSS
•HOP
•Co
•C
onvent
ntiional
•Maaterials Dis
•M
Disttrib
ribu
utio
tion
n
•Cockle
ockleb
bury Sidings
Signalling &
Signalling &
Telecoms
Includes
Includ
es::
•Sign
•Sig
nallllin
ingg Im
Immun
muniisation
•Telleco
•Te
ecom
ms Im
Immu
munis
nisaation
•SCA
•SC
ADA
Power &
Power &
Distribution
In
Incl
clud
udes
es::
•Poweer & Di
•Pow
Distribu
stributio
tion
n
•Nattional
•Na
nal Gr
Grid
id
PMO
PMO &
&
Others
Others
Inccludes
In
udes::
•PMO
•PM
•Deesign Fee
•D
Feess
•RU
•RUS Develop
Developm
ment
•NO
•NOB
BO/DEBO
•Posse
ssessi
ssio
ons
•Scchedul
•S
ulee 4
•Cons
•C
onseent
ntss & En
Envvironment
Appendix B
GWRM Requirements Structure
Network Rail
Network Rail
16
Network Rail