Inquiry required to pinpoint engineering accountability
The letter from Ross Middleton ( Open Access, RAIL 833) is a wholly appropriate crie
de coeur concerning the rail electrification debacle.
However, he concentrates specifically on railway issues. I would suggest that the effect of the cancellation of electrification is much broader than that, and that over the next few decades this decision will lead to second-rate transport links and a slowdown in economic activity in many areas, with fewer jobs and opportunities and a reduced quality of life.
In addition, the move towards diesel traction on the railway, just as the harmful effects of diesel are becoming very apparent, is a hugely retrograde step. In the meantime, other suitable technologies such as hydrogen and battery power are not close to being able to be implemented at scale.
Unfortunately (and it pains me to say this as an engineer), a large part of the blame for this is due to the failure of the engineering function at Network Rail.
While I am not a great fan of inquiries, it is my contention that in this case the effects are so long-lasting and significant on society, as well as the railway, that accountability is required.
If this were in another profession such as medicine, and the effects were potentially as significant, that profession would instigate a major enquiry both to learn lessons and to allocate responsibility.
It is my belief the engineering profession should do the same in this case, to provide answers to two questions.
How did the massive over-design of the overhead structures occur, and who was responsible both for the design and for its approval?
Why were the necessary derogations not sought for clearances, and who made the decision not to pursue this?
If the engineering profession, ■ presumably in the form of the Institutions, is not prepared to investigate these issues, it should certainly be on the agenda of the Transport Select Committee Chris Baker, Birmingham