West Coast Mainline Modernisation. Project Analysis - Essay Example

?West Coast Mainline Modernisation Project Analysis Introduction Mobility plays a major role in the development of civilisations. Development employs massive mobility projects that often encompass means to transfer peoples, goods, and raw materials. These mobility means are both demand-side and supply side – with demand approximated to transportation facilities and infrastructure, and supply approximated to the capacity of users to employ alternative means to address access and mobility processes. The various transportation facilities and infrastructure that are developed in the process are roads, bridges, rails and other facilities that aid in mobility and access. These developments are done in stage or per project basis that ascertains specific end-results employing project management. Project Management is previously a management philosophy that soon evolved into a business process (Kerzner, 2009). It involves planning, organising, securing and managing resources to achieve goals. It is to be understood that a project has its specific start and ending, and is dependent on time, budget or funding, and deliverables. It is usually expected to bring positive or beneficial results. Its temporary nature make it unique from business operations which is a continuous one or somewhat permanent in the delivery of products or services. This paper will discuss and analyse a rail industry project – the West Coast Main Line Modernisation - and describe the project management problems encountered in this project completion. In the project implementation of a rail, various management stages involved are Output Definition, Pre-Feasibility, Option Selection, Single Option Development, Detailed Design, Construction, Testing and Commissioning, Scheme Handback and Project Close Out (Network Rail, 2003). • A brief description of your chosen project. The West Coast Main Line or WCML is the rail backbone of United Kingdom when it comes to importance and number of populations served. It underwent several modernisation stages and the latest of which was the Network Rail modernisation that commenced by the 1990s. Plans for the upgrade and renewal of the line by Virgin Trains for the tilting Pendolino trains with increased speed of 140 mph or 225 km/h was aborted when deemed ambitious. The proposed upgrade involved the adoption of the moving block signalling which worked with light rail systems and metro lines, but not yet proven with high-speed heavy rail network (Office of Rail Regulation, 2007). Owned by Network Rail, WCML is the busiest mixed traffic railway route provider, an intercity link connecting London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow to the West Midlands, North West, North Wales, and the Central Belt of Scotland. Handling about 75 million passengers per annum translated to about 43% of UK’s rail freight traffic, it is also links many other smaller towns and cities serving as a suburban railway. The various operators of the WCML are Virgin Trains, East Coast, London Midland, Southern, CrossCountry, First TransPennine Express, Northern Rail, Arriva Trains Wales, First ScotRail, DB Schenker Rail (UK), GB Railfreight, Freightliner Ltd., and Direct Rail Services Ltd (Network Rail, 2007). It was designated a priority Trans-European Networks route. It connects to European mainland via the Channel Tunnel. In 1955, it was modernised and electrified implemented in stages from 1959 to 1974. Electrification was first implemented on the route from Crewe to Manchester completed by 1960, followed by Crewe to Liverpool by 1962, London by 1965, Birmingham by 1967, and Weaver Junction to Glasgow by 1974. The introduction of the Inter-City brand in 1966 came with high-speed long-distance services where journey clocked in 2 hours and 40 minutes from London to Manchester or Liverpool (Thomas, 1971). Modern coaches followed with the Mark 2 and air-conditioned Mark 3, and soon linespeed was raised to 110 mph or 177 km/h with electric locomotives that doubled passenger traffic from 1962 to 1975 (British Railways Board or BRB, 1979). • Discuss your opinion of the level success or failure of this project. Since WCML was not originally conceptualised as a single network, various stages of the modernisation process were difficult including the use of modern technology such as deployment of tilting trains, plans for using the moving block signalling to increase travel speed and pave the use of the titling Pendolino train, and their succeeding results. As Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office, said: When the Strategic Rail Authority stepped in, the project to modernise the West Coast Main Line was in disarray, vastly over-budget and with few of the planned improvements in place. It was only through good direction by the Strategic Rail Authority and then the Department for Transport and through the exercise of firm management by Network Rail that the project was brought back on track so that benefits of faster journeys are now being delivered to passengers… The weaknesses in the management of the project before 2002 should provide ample warning of the dangers of entering into a scheme on this scale without clear leadership, plans and project management expertise; without fully engaging stakeholders; and using untried technologies. Future major projects should draw upon these lessons learned, give careful consideration up front to the potential effects of programme slippage and include plans to minimise these risks (Bourn, 2006, NAO Press Notice) 2. Discussion Project organisation and the management on the project. Modernisation or regeneration of urban structures often includes transportation facilities that are often influenced by increasing demands as well as technological advances (Church, 1990). The same can be said on the WCML. In the process of modernisation, various stakeholders, contractors, departments, and teams take charge of roles that are vital in the completion of every project. As suggested (NR, 2011), there are four roles of every unit or person involved in project management: responsibility, accountability, consultation, and information. Under responsibility, authoritative bodies are the responsible ones in the planning and conceptualisation stage of the WCML. First, there was Network Rail as the Sponsor. Its roles include provision of the objectives of the WCML; provide input into the management project process including difficulties and constraints of which the investment manager and project manager may not have been aware of; ensure that the scope, business, operations, maintenance and output are identified, managed, and assessed (NR, 2003). Second is the Project Manager tasked at implementing the project, appoint specific personnel; maintain project management plan throughout; ensure the competence of the project team and challenges and difficulties are properly managed; and carry out regular and continuous evaluation and reviews. Third is the Risk Manager who ensures compliance with management procedures; provide required management resources to the manager and oversee recruitment; assess difficulties and barriers regularly and feed into the company corporate governance; produce the overall business unit risk management plan and assess risks regularly; coordinate training and peer reviews, collect and disseminate best practices; and participate in peer reviews and stage gate reviews of projects. Fourth important role in project management is the Risk Analyst who implements risk management procedures and practice; manage risk on a project; assess risks, qualitative or quantitative costs and schedules; highlight risks and ensure and follow-up appropriate actions; help in the risk review process; update risk register; report to risk review meetings on progress against risk management actions; and join peer reviews (NL, 2003, p 7). Technical Difficulty … The major technical difficulties of the modernisation of the WCML were the aging infrastructure and increasingly unreliable service. Specifically, areas that needed to be addressed are the increase of speed on problematic routes as well as increased capacity for operators (House of Commons, 2007). However, detailed goals, fitting skills, and strict adherence to timetable also proved problematic between all stakeholders. Planning and Control Effectiveness. The Office of Rail Regulation (2010) or ORR specified several findings on the Network Rail project management oversight as follows: Failure of Network Rail to manage the access and timetable development process and lack of resolve in accommodating operators’ and funders’ changing requirement; Unclear policy on the integration of strategic plan into its timetable development Lack of rigorous project planning disciplines and control to ensure consistent strategic development Problematic skills mix available at Network Rail Oversight of ORR in providing clear remit, timescales, deadlines, and follow-up progress of work even at the outset of the process Lack of alignment between access planning, franchising, and funding timetable Changing requirements of train operators which caused much delays Lack of cooperative approaches between stakeholders from funders, train operators, and Network Rail (ORR, 2010). One of the bigger mistakes for the modernisation of WCML was the lack of assessment for technical viability and cost of the moving block signalling of which the project management team lacked the capable technology to implement the plan. As already admitted by ORR itself, the problems had been widespread and rarely isolated as one challenge could have been resolved with the determination of another stakeholder to pursue positive results. The previous launch of the Advanced Passenger Train or APT which introduced the tilting train to the WCML to increase speed on curvaceous lines provided hindsight for the adoption of new and untested technologies. Early indications proved promising by reducing up to 4 hours travel time in the London-Glasgow route but the APT had been unreliable and had to be scrapped (NL, 2003). The lack of a central plan is one of the biggest problems modernisation of the WCML and the implementation of the adopted changes by operators, regulators, and Network Rail also lacked timetable and specific goals. This made it susceptible to a lot of gaps and design limitations. Up to the modernisation process taken these recent years, addressing travel time and the curves proved costly and led to the bankruptcy of Railtrack in 2001 and this led to Network Rail overtake. Cost remained one of the challenges as cost of upgrade soared and overruns occurred for the targeted ?8bn and ?10bn estimate. Planners had to contend with lower speed target at 125 mph or 201 km/h instead of the 155 mph or 250 km/h (NL, 2011). The Manchester upgrade was completed by September 2004 with travel clocks at 1 hour 21 minutes for London-Birmingham, 2 hours 6 minutes for London-Manchester, and 4 hours 25 minutes for London-Glasgow (NL, 2011). The Crewe-Manchester line via Wilmslow was finished by 2006. The modernisation of the quadrupling of the track in the Trent Valley, addressing the slow lines, remodelling of the Nuneaton with its second phase, and upgrading of Stafford, Rugby, Milton Keynes, and Coventy Station were completed by December 2008, which took a modernisation process in a decade (NL, 2011). The overruns and underestimation on costs as well as adoption of technologies can be seen as major blunders of the project management process for WCML in its modernisation bid. These are manifested on the APT tilting train which proved disastrous as well as the untimely adoption of the moving block signalling. These provided set-backs on the modernisation process as considerable costs and resources were lost which could have been properly utilised on workable options. The External Factors which influenced project management. There were three major external factors that influenced the effectiveness of the WCML implementation. They may be categorised as environment, political, and economic factors. The environment factor is the natural land forms, political are stakeholders and various groups involved in the policy-making, regulation, funding, implementation, and supervision of the rail routes, operations, and facilities, and economic factors are investors’ interest and stimulation. Outside factors that remain influential in the modernisation process but of which rooted to century-old problem was the project implementation where single routes were encouraged as well as conformity to natural contours of lands or even bodies of water in order to avoid further construction costs. These resulted to curves and bends, gaps and gradients, elevated up hills and uplands such as the Chilterns or Tring cutting, the Watford Gap, Cumbria mountains, the Shap, Beattock Summit and Lanarkshire, down on valleys (BRB, 1979). These curving routes remained a major problem for modernising the WCML due to the challenge on safety and speed of travel on those areas where it is important to address these curves and bends. The ORR (2010) recommended for improved processes and communications, robust and appropriate project management, appropriation of necessary resources, clear and transparent expectations of all stakeholders, and alignment of access planning and franchising processes. 3. Conclusion Describe how the lessons … The lessons from this project are as follows: Long-term planning should be incorporated on short-term goals and achievable projects in order to reduce risks and difficulties on the possibility of the need to expand as well as upgrade rail routes, stations, and facilities; Effective communication and information dissemination during the consultation should be adopted to ensure that all parties and stakeholders will cooperate to the achievement of best results and outcomes such as more convenient or direct route lines; Reconsideration of lesser-involved stakeholders’ position such as communities and land owners who may be better convinced of allowing routes to pass through their areas or selling portions of their lands for a better routing if costs may be a problem: increased amount of property costs may remain cost-effective in the long run; Most importantly, there should be a risk management team to be deployed in all rail projects to properly assess challenges and barriers during the planning and consultation period up to the completion of a project. The role of risk management team is highlighted on the WCML lessons due to the blunders committed throughout the modernisation process of the WCML. It can be concluded that the lack of risk management team that addressed the earliest portions of the WCML resonated more than a century later if not throughout its own history due to the fatal and major mistakes committed. Risk management teams address not only short-term and apparently visible problems of a project but consider the long-term implications and problems that major, permanent projects such as the WCML will encounter in the nearest, and even in the future. Thus, they reduce the possibility of problems such as those encountered in the project management of the WCML. Reference: Bourn, John. 2006. NAO Press Office. British Railways Board. 1974. Electric All The Way. Information booklet. From www.railwaysarchive.co.uk Church, Andrew. 1990. Transport and urban regeneration in London Docklands: a victim of success or a failure to plan? British Geographers Annual Conference, January 3-6, 1990, Glasgow, UK. House of Commons. 2007. The Nidernisation of the West Coast Main Line. Thirtieth Report of Session 2006-07. Kerzner, Harold. 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley. Network Rail 2003. Guide to Railway Investment Projects. Project Management Manual. Network Rail. 2011. Business Plan 2007. Accessed July from http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3085.aspx Office of Rail Regulation. 2010. East Coast Main Line – Lessons Learned Report. August. Thomas, John. 1971. A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain. Volume VI Scotland: The Lowlands and the Borders (1st ed.). Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Read More