EUROPEAN red tape has been blamed for causing cost overruns and delays to the flagship Edinburgh-Glasgow railway electrification.
Engineers have been forced to raise overhead wires along the route by as little as 80 millimetres in places to comply with stricter safety standards, with thousands of metres of extra fencing and height alterations to around 150 railways bridge parapets also contributing to a predicted seven-month delay in completed the work.
However, project leaders admitted to MSPs that they could have reacted faster to changes in European standards.
Delays to the electrification of the railway line between Edinburgh and Glasgow were caused as a result of negotiating a legislation "minefield", MSPs have heard.
Project leaders admitted they could have reacted faster to changes in European standards that had a major impact on the work.
They appeared before Holyrood's Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee to explain why the scheme has been delayed by seven months to July 2017.
Phil Verster, managing director of the ScotRail Alliance, a formal alliance between Abellio ScotRail and Network Rail, told the committee: "We're doing quite a lot of work to try and better that and improve that and to turn that situation into a success."
He said the majority of rail projects in Scotland has been completed on time but changes to international standards for rail electrification "has added critical cost and time" to the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP).
Karl Budge, regional director of infrastructure projects for Network Rail, compared electrification to a "minefield" covered by multiple pieces of UK and European legislation.
He said that in early 2015 a European standard was updated which changed the distance away from the wires that was considered safe for bridges or railway platforms, making it stricter.
Mr Budge said: "That doesn't mean it was a complete rewire of EGIP and everything that had been put up, which is what the media suggested several weeks ago.
"What it meant was redesign in certain areas and very localised changes around structures where we had to change the wire height slightly or risk-assess through to prove that we didn't need to.
"So, that was an ongoing process that started in 2015 along a project the length of EGIP and with as many structures as it has - it has been really quite complex to do that."
Changes to standards for boundary wall measures also meant thousands of metres more fencing was needed while parapet heights along the line had to be raised.
Mr Verster said: "There was this attempt by Network Rail to keep costs down and say 'this new specification is really high, can we risk-assess it so that we get a derogation and therefore not have to comply?'.
"So, we made a decision last year when all of the shenanigans started to become really clear about the cost issues, it became also clear to us and to me that if we don't comply with these standards the ORR (Office of Rail and Road) will not sign off that this line goes live.
"I made the decision in around the March period of time and asked the project team ... 'stop the debate, move to the new standard. The railway has a life of hundreds of year into the future, fix this now'."
Asked whether enough notice is given when standards are changed, he responded: "I dare say it's reasonable notice and I dare say therefore in full transparency the debate on risk assessments and what standards to use went on for too long. We had to call time on it."
He added: "This is not money wasted, the railway is getting a different specification, so it's work that has to be done."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel