Articles
Yet enhancing rail infrastructure is a long-term business and government commitments to ‘building back better’ recognise that transport connectivity is vital to economic growth and job creation.
As an example, the review of the Treasury’s Green Book is considering the strategic case for transport investment rather than project-specific cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, decarbonising transport requires a modal shift to rail. However, this requires a significant increase in capacity as, pre-Covid, rail carried a small proportion of freight and passenger traffic.
Yet, after high-profile project failures such as the Great Western electrification, government perception is that rail has a poor project delivery record. So the industry has to have the confidence of its funders if it is to secure investment.
This was the message that Network Rail’s CEO, Andrew Haines, gave to a recent conference to unveil the company’s Project Speed initiative. This introduces a more flexible project-management process and aims to create a culture that challenges accepted practice and allows teams to determine how best to deliver their projects. Pilot schemes have shown that this has potential to significantly reduce project costs and timescales.
Benefits of having a plan
While the industry must keep costs down, so must the government. In this respect, recent observations about the Great Western electrification project by Network Rail’s chairman, Sir Peter Hendy, are relevant. He considered that this project was developed in a short time, it was not part of anyone’s plan, and the supply chain was not ready to produce what was needed.
He contrasted this with Transport for London’s long-term investment plan, which contained a list of carefully thought-out and costed projects, and felt the national rail network would benefit from such an approach.
If the supply chain is to develop the required capability, it needs such visibility of future investment. Yet, at the time of writing, it is over 500 days since the Department for Transport (DfT) updated its rail enhancements programme. Meanwhile, the DfT has published a road investment strategy in accordance with the 2015 Infrastructure Act.
Need for decarbonisation
Also required is a long-term view of the investment needed for rail decarbonisation, as the House of Commons’ transport committee recommends in its Trains Fit for the Future report. Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy also presents the indisputable case for large-scale electrification. This was submitted to the DfT in July last year and still awaits a response.
In contrast, in the same month the Scottish government published its Rail Services Decarbonisation Action Plan, which would see all but rural lines electrified by 2035. This provides a catalyst for associated enhancements, such as freight gauge clearance and the development of a rolling-stock strategy.
The need for such a strategy is shown by the boom-and-bust nature of train procurement. The 1,000 new rail vehicles procured in the five years before 2015 contrasts with 7,000 procured in the past five years at a cost of £14bn. This put 3,000 extra vehicles into service but resulted in thousands of vehicles being scrapped years before the end of their serviceable life.
While these new vehicles are more efficient and cheaper to maintain, total UK rolling-stock costs have doubled in the past five years to £3bn a year. Most of this cost is servicing private finance, as new trains are not funded from the public purse.
Rail still offers unique advantages, and improved rail connectivity drives economic growth. However, this requires a considerable investment programme. While the industry has to deliver projects in a cost-effective manner, a long-term strategic investment plan is also needed if the best use is to be made of available funds.
Want the best engineering stories delivered straight to your inbox? The Professional Engineering newsletter gives you vital updates on the most cutting-edge engineering and exciting new job opportunities. To sign up, click here.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.