View the latest railway news 

 Download this document

[29 October 2007] The Railway Engineers Forum (REF) is a multi-disciplinary body drawn from the professional Institutions with strong railway interests. The members are the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), the Institution of Railway Operators, (IRO) the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE), the Permanent Way Institution (PWI) and the Railway Civil Engineers Association (RCEA). The REF provides informed professional comment on railway issues both in response to government and transport industry proposals and to matters of more general concern.

It is currently chaired by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

The REF agreed a joint response to the Technical Strategy, which was issued in parallel with a response to the White Paper. All of the member Institutions therefore agreed with the main points made in the submission, and publishing the precise submission is not allowed under Select Committee rules. However, as members you should know what is being said on your behalf, so we digest the main points below.

Summary

The stance we have taken is that we like a lot of it, and the fact that we now have a strategy. It is the first time we have had a plan that includes the growth of rail for a hundred years or so, and we should accept the challenge and the opportunity. How can we (the professional Institutions) help make the good things happen, and the other things better?

1 Major Plus Points

1.1 The Railway Technical Strategy is the first government backed technical strategy for the railway for at least 50 years. It works with the White Paper's statement of “Delivering a Sustainable Railway”, with the associated HLOS (High Level Output Statement) and SOFA (Statement of Funds Available).

1.2 The REF welcomes this initial document with the stated purpose of the RTS. In conjunction with the HLOS, it brings self-assurance to the rail market in the UK in a way that has not previously been seen.

1.3 We are aware that this project has been a key piece of work for the DfT, and applaud the vast contribution made by railway professionals. We particularly welcome and understand the importance of delivering a 7 day railway which the RTS proposes, the acknowledgement of current rail growth and achievements, plus the financial ground to plan for continuous growth in the form of significant projects and additional new trains.

2 Purpose of the Rail Technical Strategy

2.1 Perhaps unavoidably, there are some less satisfactory aspects. In the view of the REF, the Railway Technical Strategy does not fulfil its stated rationale, which was set out as follows: 

• Creation of suitable incentives 
• Appropriate standards and guidance relating to specification of asset renewal 
• Harmonisation of objectives for key projects 
• Comprehensive explanation of chief priorities for long-term research 
• Assisting to mould and outline Britain’s response to European initiatives 
• Application overall of a whole-life, whole-system cost approach

2.2 These objectives are discussed in turn.

2.3 Creation of appropriate incentives

2.3.1 It is ambiguous as to where the document discusses this point. For example, creating a more consistent railway is commendable, but the RTS lacks consistency with regards to target and reference to suitable mechanisms.

2.3.2 It ceases to accurately reflect the current market position of UK rail in a global industry sector and therefore places great emphasis on the specific requirements from trains and infrastructure, without actually suggesting a means for delivery.

2.4 Appropriate standards and guidance for the specification of asset renewal

2.4.1 Section 4 on “The Railway As A System” tackles this point sufficiently.

2.5 Harmonisation of objectives for major projects

2.5.1 Section 4 also helps to clarify this point.

2.6 Definition of key priorities for long-term research

2.6.1 It does this, although with various reservations. As a result, train availability has been suggested as a new target for additional research, however the availability in the UK is at present quite good whereas train reliability is lacking in world class uniformity. The two subjects are without doubt related, but are not the same.

2.6.1 The document places too great a dependency on the materialisation of new power technologies, yet seems to ignore the obvious benefits of using existing technology, notably electric railways.

2.7 Helping to shape Britain’s response to European initiatives

2.7.1 This point would be fulfilled further if the document were to recognize the existence of the present European policies, (eg modal shift to rail on the grounds of congestion and economic efficiency – EEC White paper 2001).

2.7.2 Its view of ERTMS may yet prove to be very optimistic in terms of the timescale for delivery of Level 3 systems capable of delivering the necessary benefits for the UK system.

2.7.3 The REF does not agree that cab signalling needs to precede electrification in order to avoid immunisation costs.

2.8 Application overall of a whole-life, whole-system cost approach

2.8.1 The RTS fails to cover this point well as it appears to be based on significantly low levels of cost-benefit research. For example, train unreliability is a small component of service unreliability – total delays being on average 15%. The document suggests that in order to improve said reliability a target should be put in place which would optimistically raise dependability by a factor of around four or five. Infrastructure delays currently account for around 60% of the total delays, however the document does not suggest any future target for improvement in this area or suggest where a cost effective balance should lie.

3 Alignment With HLOS

3.1 Despite the Railway Technical Strategy acknowledging the need for significant alignment with the White Paper – and this is obviously a good starting point - it has the weakness of importing all the deficiencies of the latter. In particular, it fails to move swiftly to maximise the potential of rail in the reduction of UK carbon emissions.

3.2 We are also very apprehensive with the strategy’s thinking, in relation to the lack of robustness in the period beyond 2015.

3.3 The following, we have agreed, are of high significance.

3.4 Growth

3.4.1 The White Paper barely accommodates the growth rate that the railways are currently experiencing despite the current adverse pricing drift against comparator modes. Further price increases above inflation for the rail mode in isolation have the potential to choke latent demand and add unwelcome barriers to modal shift.

3.5 Modal Shift

3.5.1 It fails to recognize the European Policies for modal shift to rail as outlined in the Commission’s White Paper (2001) and the 2006 update. The 2001 case was made on the basis of economic efficiency and congestion and proposed a Europe wide Freight network, the 2006 update added the climate change perspective to this issue.

3.5.2 The key message which came back from the recent work in Europe is that left unchecked transport will use up the total CO2 allowance and air will use up all of transport’s quota by 20351. The only way to maintain mobility and meet the European 2 degree temperature increase restriction target includes a modal shift to rail.

3.5.3 As a result of this it fails completely to plan for any additional growth which could be inspired by modal shift on the grounds of climate change, yet this shift will be required to meet the government’s own targets on CO2 reduction (30% on 1990 base by 2020 according to Climate Change Bill).

3.6 Wider Options

3.6.1 The White Paper clearly acknowledges that growth in demand and wider socio-economic factors could potentially require radical options, including new build, preferably exploiting existing unused alignments such as the Great Central Route. If such an intervention is to remain an option, preparatory work would need to begin in the very near future.

3.7 Skills

3.7.1 In the same context, we are dissatisfied that the strategy has very little to say on developing the necessary skills. The long term issues of skills shortages in science, engineering and technology have, over the last few years, been well publicised and therefore investment needs to begin now in training and development to ensure that the UK has access to the necessary human resources as the programme unfolds and develops in the future.

4 The Way Forward

4.1 The REF welcomes the document purely as a working base to get to a strategy that reflects the country’s need for sustainable mobility as part of a competitive European economy.

4.2 The REF will help to co-ordinate the professional response to the document by co-sponsorship of events with its constituent professional Institutions, and by arranging a number of its own suitable events. Appropriate events will be aimed at improving the strategy in the way that it impacts on:

• Infrastructure, track and signalling
• Trains
• Customer appeal

4.3 The REF will also lobby for a full recognition of the place of railways as a solution to climate change and economic efficiency issues

Cliff Perry
Chairman, Railway Engineers Forum


1 European Rail Agency, Report 1/2007 ISSN 1725-9177

Back to top