Guest Comment: A root cause of inefficiency

Rail need a set of strategies that will allow an optimised deployment of rolling stock across the network for years to come, says Ian Prosser

For as long as I can remember, going all the way back to before the 2011 McNulty review that was initiated by the coalition government, it was clear that the railways were inefficient or not providing value for the passengers and taxpayers - the actual funders of the railways.

I participated in the study, and I had one of my inspectors integrated into one of the workstreams full-time, with the Office of Rail and Road jointly sponsoring the review.

The study identified that not all causes were root (which was not a surprise to me) and were very similar to those identified by Keith Williams many years later.

I felt the recommendations were watered down somewhat, and that consequently aspects such as the creation of the Rail Delivery Group had limited impact.

Years later we had the Williams-Shapps White Paper, from which (I thought) reform was going to happen quickly, as change was obviously needed to deal with the financial stress the industry was under.

That was not to be.

Pace, however, has now picked up with the government’s A railway fit for Britain’s future consultation paper.

Published in mid-February, it describes putting Great British Railways (GBR) in place as a directing mind through new legislation (RAIL 1030).

I totally agree with the concept of bringing track and train together and letting GBR set the detailed direction under a strategy set by the Secretary of State.

If the Department for Transport does remove itself from day-to-day activities and other actions happen (more later), we should see efficiencies achieved and it being made easier to do stuff more quickly, even if the Treasury has always been sceptical.

The studies identified root causes of this inefficiency and poor performance. More about reform in a future column, but a root cause has been that over many years there has been a lack of an overall industry traction and rolling stock strategy. This has led to significant waste and poor value for money.

Scotland has made a better fist of it by publishing a decarbonisation strategy, although it is finding funding a challenge.

There has been more than one attempt to provide some kind of whole-industry strategic plan - WISP was the name given to one attempt, but that never saw the light of day.

The result of this is significant inefficiencies and waste in the deployment of rolling stock and the rollout of electrification. I might add that from my outside perspective, it was not the fault of the private sector suppliers.

A key issue has been the lack of a thoroughly thought-through traction and rolling stock strategy.

I firmly believe we now have a burning platform here, scrapping perfectly good electric multiple units with some real life left in them, while then having to soldier on with 40-year-old diesel multiple units (DMUs). This could well result in increased safety risk.

We need strategies for the short, medium and long term that will allow an optimised deployment of rolling stock across the network for years to come.

We must address this situation in terms of overall value for money - where the limitations of the electrified infrastructure have resulted in mid-life, fully Persons of Reduced Mobility-compliant electric fleets coming off-lease (Class 350s) or have been/are being scrapped (for example, Class 365s and refurbished ‘321s’), while ‘15x’ units soldier on.

One example is the lack of an identified replacement for Class 158s.

Now heading towards 40 years of age, the Sprinter fleets have been a great servant to the railway. But keeping them running efficiently and safely will become more difficult, with aspects such as engine maintenance becoming more challenging.

Even though the consultation on the creation of GBR has now been published, the best-case scenario seems to have it being established in April 2027. These strategies need to be in place well before then, if we are to ensure the deployment of the right technologies in the right places providing the best value for money.

I understand work has started, but it is not very visible and needs to be a top priority.

I would start with a traction strategy. If it was left to me, I’d start by establishing what further electrification in the medium and long term is affordable, over and above what is already planned - such as the Transpennine Route Upgrade, elements on the Midland Main Line, and some stretches in Scotland.

With the improvements in more cost-effective standards, and with much more efficient technology being deployed and not repeating past mistakes (such as excessive pile lengths), this approach - targeted with using battery and discontinuous electrification - could help freight and some rural routes.

Also, I firmly believe that all forms of proven traction have a place and should be considered.

Options for potentially using hydrogen should be identified. Is it a cost-effective way of replacing some two-car DMUs? Why not trial it on the new East West Rail line, rather than using diesels on a new railway?

Saudi Arabia is a long way down the road of developing hydrogen traction for its freight operations.

This will then allow, in an integrated way, the development of a realistic and deliverable rolling stock strategy for the short, medium and long term.

That then gives the supply chain funders, manufacturers and maintainers the ability to plan efficiently and reduce overall costs.

However, manufacturers and others need to ensure realistic timescales for delivery, and use emerging world-leading test facilities to ensure more reliable and faster introduction into operation.

In summary, I firmly believe this is a very urgent issue. The lack of a thought-through traction and rolling stock strategy, apart from perhaps Scotland, has been a root cause for the poor value for money the railways have delivered in the past 20 years.

There are others, some of which the creation of GBR is trying to address. But this cannot wait. And I do not believe it is difficult to deliver. Let’s just make it happen.