Autumn Statement boost

Funding will be continued for major rail projects

THERE will be relief that despite a robust Autumn Statement delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which proposes a mix of tax rises and spending cuts, major rail projects are to continue.

Suggestions that HS2 would be cut back to terminate at Crewe (or even more drastically at Birmingham) have been rejected, with a commitment that the line will be extended to Manchester and East Midlands Parkway.

The eastern leg to Leeds and the Golborne link to connect directly with the West Coast Main Line to shorten journey times to Scotland have already been axed. And an earlier judgement to forego the proposed connection between HS1 and HS2 using the North London route is another decision that weakens the overall economic case.

But it is most likely that the view has been taken that the project is too far advanced to consider abandoning construction, and that continuing beyond Birmingham will produce a better financial outcome in the long run.

Leisure-based longer-distance travel has recovered strongly in the post-COVID period, and operations on the East Coast Main Line have demonstrated a substantial transfer to rail from domestic air flights - although it has taken the entry of a new open access operator, Lumo, to exploit the opportunity to increase rail market share.

A key element of the original justification for building HS2 was that the existing West Coast Main Line was operating at full capacity, and could not accommodate expansion in the number of intermodal services from ports in the South East to population centres in the West Midlands, North West, and Scotland.

There has been growth in intermodal traffic, and that is likely to be even greater as a result of the changing consumer market, with an increase in home deliveries from regional distribution centres at the expense of High Street retailing.

Infrastructure investment in both Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail will continue. But in both cases, there is doubt about whether the full scope of the projects will be implemented.

The completion of Crossrail (the Elizabeth line) has brought focus on the Crossrail 2 proposal, which would provide another London artery between Wimbledon and north London linking the South Western and Great Northern routes. But it is unlikely to receive funding in the foreseeable future, given the levelling-up agenda that seeks to rebalance the economy by providing greater government investment outside London and the South East.

However, population growth in London, and economic benefits that include the potential rise in land values for property adjacent to the line, is likely to demonstrate a strong business case for Crossrail 2, which could be built more quickly if a greater proportion of private sector funding is harnessed than was the case for the initial line.

Through services using the Elizabeth line were increased from November 6, but this did not attract significant media coverage - mainly because it has been an operational success, reflecting the detailed service delivery planning by MTR (as the concession holder) and Transport for London.

This is a big achievement, given the number of interfaces between different signalling systems, supported by pre-service simulation using the Crossrail Integration Facility developed by Siemens Mobility.

There is an expectation that when final software upgrades are complete to allow the full potential of the Elizabeth line to be implemented, there will not be any need for revenue support - a considerable achievement for an urban transport system.

Driver training and rostering have proved fit for purpose, unlike the introduction of enhanced Thameslink services, which resulted in more substitute bus services operating than trains. Over-complicated rostering continues to bedevil these routes, with multiple driver changes meaning that a single non-appearance for duty can result in a series of cancellations.

It is also encouraging news that smaller-scale funding for line reopenings remains on the table, with recent authority from the Department for Transport to proceed with the £152 million Portishead project, which will allow enabling works to start. The nine-mile route is in part a freight-only line, which will be upgraded for passenger use with intermediate stations. A train service to Bristol will be provided with an hourly frequency.

In terms of the cost of operating, maintaining and renewing the network, the future level of funding will be known once the Government provides a Statement of Funds Available for the five-year Control Period between 2024 and 2029. Once that is published, the Office of Rail and Road will work with Network Rail to determine the High Level Output Specification, which will define expectations for the performance of the network and enhancements.

This process asks the question: where does the transition team at Great British Railways (GBR) fit in?

It represents a significant funding requirement for the DfT, and with spending limits imposed on government departments as part of the Autumn Statement, I sense there is a growing feeling that the last thing the industry needs is an expensive overhead with little added value so far as railway customers are concerned.

A number of intended functions for GBR are real enough, such as the intended negotiation and supervision of Passenger Service Contracts with the train operators, and specifying the timetable to be operated. A single online ticket retailing platform has also been proposed, although whether this is consistent with the competitive nature of current retailing is open to conjecture.

There is a concern that as controlling minds already exist in the form of the Treasury and DfT, there can only be conflict if another body believing it has similar powers comes into being. This has been tried before, when the Strategic Rail Authority was established and developed unhealthy command and control tendencies that upset both the government and stakeholders.

Circumstances do change, and it is now more than four years since the failed implementation of the May 2018 timetable brought a belief that change was necessary to reconcile the evident conflict between the DfT, infrastructure owner and train operators.

Thanks to the leadership style at Network Rail in the intervening period (it has become more inclusive and customer-focused, with a strong regional emphasis) it is hard to see what GBR can achieve that is not deliverable by an enlarged NR organisation under regulatory supervision.

“It is also encouraging news that smaller-scale funding for line reopenings remains on the table.”