23.02.18
Array of Thameslink failures mean there are ‘critical tests looming’ for HS2
Despite its progress, the Thameslink Programme still faces substantial challenges that must be addressed to ensure successful delivery – and its many issues so far, including higher costs and delayed targets, have served to illustrate how slow the DfT and Network Rail were to grapple with the importance of early planning.
In a scathing new report from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), MPs have criticised the two organisations for taking too long to start planning how the new railway would operate, and to decide to introduce services in phases “rather than a single big bang.”
Last year, for example, the DfT decided to push back the full completion of the scheme from December this year to 2019, as well as to introduce services gradually up to that point in order to minimise passenger disruption – although this does mean that some commuters will not receive the full benefits of the programme until a year after the original deadline.
MPs in the committee argued that this is linked to the fact that the DfT and Network Rail only started to focus on planning how they would bring services online from late 2016, and claimed that the department accepted it could have started planning earlier.
“Passengers and the practicalities of running services should be at the heart of public transport planning,” commented Meg Hillier, chair of the committee. “On Thameslink these considerations came too late and government faced a stark choice: delay the roll-out of services or risk additional disruption on the network. Either way, passengers lose out.”
PAC also accused the government and NR of having a poor understanding of the performance of the rail network, and said they did not monitor the impact that increasing services and failing infrastructure would have on passengers. Since the start of the programme, for example, growth in passenger numbers in the south east has been “far higher” than anticipated, and MPs reported that Network Rail did not fully understand the effect this congestion would have on Thameslink until 2016.
As a result, the infrastructure owner found out it would need another £900m in order to improve the condition of the network to a level which could reliably support the planned 24 train-per-hour ambition. The committee argued this raised concerns about NR’s understanding of the performance and condition of the railway.
“Taxpayers have also taken a hit elsewhere, with budget increases on Thameslink contributing to other rail projects being abandoned,” Hillier continued. “Government’s performance on recent rail infrastructure projects, such as its programme to electrify the Great Western route, has been poor.
“Overall progress on Thameslink compares favourably but the project is not over yet and requires significant additional public funding.
“There are critical tests looming for Network Rail and the DfT, not least the redevelopment of Euston station for HS2 – a project set to be more complex than the budget-busting work to prepare London Bridge for Thameslink.”
She argued that the government must now apply the lessons learned from Thameslink to HS2 and other future programmes and, in response to today’s report, demonstrate how it will be doing this in practice.
In response to this, a DfT spokesperson said: “The most recent independent assurance review assessed HS2’s readiness to award the major works civil contracts and concluded that the HS2 organisation is ready and fully capable of effectively delivering these key contracts.”
By June this year, PAC said the DfT should also write to the committee to clarify how it will create better working relationships between Network Rail and operators. The committee claimed that the complexity of the Thameslink Programme required a whole new approach to collaboration within the industry, and closer working relationships and incentives must be established between NR and TOCs in future – but the DfT has “not yet finalised how it will do so.”
“In November 2017, the department published ‘Connecting people: a strategic vision for rail,’ which describes how it aims to establish closer working relationships between Network Rail and private sector train operators in future, and ensure incentives are aligned across delivery bodies,” the report added.
“We are concerned that the potentially wide range of models for how this will work in practice could result in a lack of clarity about who is accountable and responsible for passenger rail services.”