02.11.17
Where next for a rail investment plan in the north?
Lord Tony Berkeley, chair of the Rail Freight Group, analyses the potential impact of major government announcements regarding pan-north electrification and CP6 funding.
In the last few months we have been subjected to a barrage of ministerial announcements about the railways in and around the Northern Powerhouse area. Maybe the penny is now dropping in Whitehall that the commitments made by George Osborne before the election need to be enhanced and delivered.
It all started with the Conservative Party manifesto of May 2016, which stated that they “are investing to reduce travel time and cost, increase capacity and attract investment” including via HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, “and we will ensure that these great projects do as much as possible to develop the skills and careers of British workers.” Fine words, but it was only a few weeks after the election that many electrification projects were effectively cancelled. Grayling wrote to me, and no doubt other peers, saying passengers will benefit from this since “new train fuelling technology that is as revolutionary as anything now being deployed in the car industry” will “transform the way passengers experience our railways.”
Then later, DfT announced that they would give the Northern Powerhouse £5m to develop a digital railway and, in September, the transport secretary stated that “there has been no change whatsoever to the electrification plans for the TransPennine route.”
Finally, on 11 October, the government announced the Statement of Funds Available (SoFA) for Network Rail over the next five-year control period. The eight-page document quoted a figure for Network Rail expenditure of £47.9bn and a network grant of £34.7bn; helpfully, four pages were blank so we don’t have a clue what the money will be spent on!
We do know, however, that it is apparently the government’s view that revolutionary bi-mode trains using electric power (presumably only on the uphill sections) are cheaper, more comfortable, faster and therefore better for passenger comfort. Most industry experts think the opposite, and deplore the cancellation of so many of the electrification plans which will, no doubt, mean a loss of many good people from the industry, higher costs and lower capacity because the bi-modes cannot accelerate as fast under diesel power.
Worse still, all upgrades will be controlled from Whitehall. The DfT plans to come up with new procedures to authorise enhancements which will be funded separately, as is HS2. Separate funding does not preclude talking to each other; it is time that HS2 properly engaged with NR routes and customers – but then, HS2 is controlled by a separate silo within DfT!
How routes can help
So, the question now is ‘can Network Rail deliver?’ A good part of the SoFA is for improved maintenance and renewals, as well as completing work held over from CP5. The pressures on the company are very high at present, in light of the delays and cost overruns, coupled with uncertainty within the organisation as to whether the routes or the centre will have the final say on what is done, how much it will cost and who is in charge.
It must be hoped that the routes can bring not only local knowledge, often missing at the DfT, but also local delivery, leaving Network Rail’s IP department with just a few major cross-route projects. The benefit of this is that it will incentivise routes to bring innovative ideas, competition and customer benefits, and their performance to be assessed by the ORR. The routes are reported to be keen as mustard to get on with this, but the centre is fighting back.
Competition between routes, not just on train performance but on delivery of maintenance, renewals and enhancements, can only be good for the industry in getting costs down and keeping the network open longer for its customers. Can this be the start of a competitive ‘can-do’ approach across the industry?
Top Image: coldsnowstorm