GW electrification
Public Accounts Committee warns that price of Great Western electrification could rise still further.
THE House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has accused Network Rail of failing to properly plan infrastructure work on the Great Western Route Modernisation (GWRM) programme, and says that it is “not clear” whether the work can be delivered by December 2018 for the revised cost of £2.8 billion.
The findings are contained in the PAC’s Modernising the Great Western Railway report, published on March 3. The Committee also says that the Department for Transport “failed to challenge NR’s plans effectively despite the very significant sums of public money at risk”, and that the DfT failed to integrate all the elements needed for passengers successfully at the planning stage and did not manage the programme in a “joined-up” way. This refers to the introduction of new trains depending on electrification being completed in time for them to enter service.
MPs on the PAC also expressed concern that “serious failings in planning and delivering” the Great Western modernisation “will affect the case for future investment in rail programmes”. Furthermore, the DfT’s claim that almost all passenger benefits can be achieved without full electrification of the route “casts doubt on the value for money of this and other electrification schemes”.
NR’s decision to obtain more than 1,800 separate consents to carry out works was also criticised, with the PAC pointing out that NR could have applied for permission under the Transport and Works Act.
The PAC’s inquiry also found that NR has still not completed an analysis of likely risks, and that a £49 million gap between its risk exposure of £274m and the available contingency of £225m “indicates that costs may not yet be fully under control”. NR’s cost estimating also came under fire, as did its design and planning of the project.
The DfT’s approach of considering the infrastructure and new trains as two linked projects rather than as one programme was criticised as being “particularly unacceptable”, with the PAC pointing out that the DfT was at risk of having to pay £400,000 per day to Agility Trains for every day the infrastructure was delayed.
The PAC recommends that NR must improve its ability to produce realistic cost estimates, and ensure that detailed plans - including a critical path - are in place for infrastructure projects before construction work starts.
It adds that the DfT must ensure “it has obtained suitable assurance over cost and deliverability before taking decisions on infrastructure investment”. It must also set out how it will develop its own programme management expertise, and how it will use this to monitor NR’s delivery.
For projects which involve infrastructure upgrades and new trains, the PAC says the DfT and NR must ensure they plan major developments in a way which brings together trains, infrastructure work and operation of services.
On wider electrification, the PAC says the DfT “needs to reassess the case for electrification on a section by section basis”, and only fund schemes where “worthwhile” benefits for passengers could not be achieved at lower cost.
It recommends that the DfT should reassess the extent of electrification in its new business case for the GRM, which is due to be complete at the end of March, and “look again” at plans for the Midland Main Line and TransPennine routes.
“Mismanagement of the Great Western programme has hit taxpayers hard and left many people angry and frustrated,” said PAC Chairman Meg Hillier.
“This is a stark example of how not to run a major project, from flawed planning at the earliest stage to weak accountability and what remain serious questions about the reasons for embarking on the work in the first place.
“The sums of public money wasted are appalling - not least the £330m additional costs the Department for Transport will have to pay to keep the trains running because of delays to electrification.
“Electrification was heralded with the promise of benefits to passengers, but the Government has a duty to determine if, in fact, these benefits can be delivered in a more timely and cost-effective way.”