Peer review: Cliff Perry
Former railway chairman of IMechE
Railway infrastructure is a long term business and transport planning is essential for rail to achieve what it is good at in an integrated and modally agnostic strategy.
Even when all transport is powered by green electricity, rail will have significant advantages in terms of energy consumption (where cost will be a significant issue for many decades to come) and in its capacity to move large volumes between nodes. In terms of environmental advantage, it is not often understood that rail is improving faster than road, through electrification, regeneration and investment in clean diesels. In a densely populated island’s transport system, with significant congestion issues already, it is essential that the transport strategy plays to the strengths of rail and each mode, factoring in the Continental links required for both freight and passengers.
On the issue of long-term planning, it is important to understand that in terms of routes, capacity, and in some places even train control, we have a railway dominated by what was laid down over 150 years ago. Major changes (HS1, HS2, Thameslink, Crossrail) have a gestation period of over two decades, and a delivery timescale of one more. We recognise that such schemes are very significant in their local and economic impact, but they are marginal in terms of overall statistics and UK customer behaviour.
Three decades is the long-term horizon of the current scenarios in the Long Term Planning Process (LTPP), which I support as a process that needs further clarity, transparency and industry recognition. Nevertheless, the basic railway infrastructure 30 years from now will still be (for most people) exactly the railway we have now. We have to improve it to meet their aspirations. Last week I waited ten minutes for a Canadian freight train to pass, on which were loaded nearly 300 double-stacked containers - a superbly productive way of moving goods in the multimodal way the modern market is demanding, but totally incompatible with a mixed traffic infrastructure.
I have one point of apparent disagreement, and a couple of points that would have been in my personal letter.
My disagreement is that I believe we should de-politicise the transport planning process. Broad public acceptance of the role and level of investment in transport by each mode is necessary, as is the answer to the basic demand/capacity/price question that sets the parameters for the role of rail in a national transport strategy.
However, the record of political decision-making in terms of the delivery of suitable transport is poor, particularly on a national strategic scale. Managing future scenarios that include changes in customer behaviour, technology, demographics, benefits, costs, and modal inter-dependency is a complex process and should be managed as such. It is much too important for the popular vote to intervene and to drive rail into sustaining roles for which it is poorly suited, such as low-density distribution tasks and rural railways. Democratisation would be expected to constrain infrastructure development, even in circumstances where it is essential to bulk movements of people and goods between nodes at the speed and flexibility demanded by the market.
My view of the letter’s omissions can be summarised in two words: confidence and resilience.
Robust, modally integrated plans that have cross-party political support are part of the gestation process for railway schemes, and are vital for industry confidence. The supply industry has been burnt many times by feast and famine, abortive investment in abandoned visions, or being asked to do instantly something that has not been done in Europe for 30 years. (for example, main line electrification of an existing busy route). We need long-term vision, (50 years), medium-term scenarios (20 years), but complete confidence in the five to ten-year planning horizon. Confidence is the key factor that drives the private sector investment essential for efficient delivery in both plant and skills. Major short term revisions drive scepticism and direct investment into other avenues.
A resilient railway infrastructure is key to service reliability and meeting the customer expectations. Much of what we have been bequeathed by our Victorian forebears was wonderfully future-proofed, but now clearly deficient in terms of technical reliability, capacity, loading gauge constraints, the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, and the maintenance challenge.
The improvement task has to be properly recognised and built into maintenance and refurbishment planning, as well as major schemes to segregate traffics, liberate railfreight from passenger railway constraints, and provide diversionary routes.
We have a great railway with a great future. Great thinking is needed to maintain its contribution to national life.
